Panoussis vs Scientology, dag 7/8

Water naar de zee dragen

Stockholm, 26 januari, Amsterdam 27 januari 2001

[Vorige afevering: Onaanvaardbare waarheden.]

WANNEER ZENON EN IK ‘s morgens aankomen bij het gerechtshof, stappen er twee vrouwen uit een wachtende auto. Een van hen blijkt de deurwaarder te zijn die indertijd de leiding had over de inbeslagneming van Zenon’s harde schijf. Ze overhandigt hem een dwangbevel: hij moet een oude belastingschuld voldoen. Ze praten even, en dan lopen we door naar binnen. Daar schiet een man op ons af. Hij toont kort een badge, stopt hem weg voordat Zenon het ding kan zien, en begint boos te praten. Even denk ik dat dit een agent is en dat Zenon ter plekke ingerekend zal worden – Scientology doet dat wel vaker met critici: valse aanklachten indienen in de hoop dat ze gearresteerd worden – maar dan blijkt dat ook dit een deurwaarder is. Zenons studielening.

Kijk eens aan. Scientology heeft aan allerlei touwtjes getrokken en stuurt iedereen op Zenon af die ze te pakken kunnen krijgen. Dit is hun wraak voor het feit dat we McShane op meineed hebben betrapt…

*

EENMAAL IN DE RECHTSZAAL informeert Zenon de rechtbank over zijn nieuwe bewijs, waarmee hij McShanes getuigenis van dinsdag kan loochenstraffen. Magnusson is vanzelfsprekend furieus en wil van geen getuigen weten. Hoe durft Panoussis aan de eerbiedwaardigheid van zijn cliënt te tornen! Dit gaat alle perken te buiten, het grenst simpelweg aan laster.

In Zenon zie ik witte woede opwellen. Met ijzige stem legt hij de rechtbank uit dat hij tot nu toe drie getuigen op pertinente leugens en fouten heeft betrapt – Thomas Small, die niet heeft verteld dat hij in dienst was van RTC terwijl hij zijn ‘historische’ uitleg gaf van de licentiecontracten tussen RTC en de erven Hubbard; de notaris met haar ‘steekproef’, en Nyström, de computerexpert die eerder zei dat Usenet postings nauwelijks te vervalsen waren en die nu moest toegeven dat duizenden, nee tienduizenden sysadmins bovenop het vuur zitten – en nu bovendien drie mensen bereid heeft gevonden om onder ede te verklaren dat McShane in zijn getuigenis van dinsdag heeft gelogen. Zenon begrijpt dat nieuwe getuigen oproepen in dit stadium van de zaak de procedure geheel in de war schopt, maar aangezien McShane onder ede heeft gelogen heeft Zenon een absoluut recht dat te bewijzen.

De rechtbank is niet ongenegen Zenon de ruimte te geven, maar is zelf ook benauwd over het te volgen schema. Nieuwe getuigen horen betekent dat de zaak tot volgende week verdaagd moet worden, eigenlijk is daar geen tijd voor. Ze stellen Zenon voor om McShane zelf opnieuw te horen, en afhankelijk van de resultaten daarvan te bepalen of hij alsnog behoefte heeft aan zijn drie nieuwe getuigen. Zenon gaat akkoord, en Magnusson kan niet anders doen dan toegeven.

Wanneer McShane opnieuw in het getuigenbankje plaatsneemt, is de spanning in de zaal tastbaar. Iedereen is doodstil en McShane schuifelt met zijn voeten. Zenon is gruwelijk precies in zijn vragen, en McShane kan er niet onderuit, hier is geen draaien meer aan: ja, er bestaat zoiets als de Freeloader’s Debt; ja, dat is een uitgestelde rekening voor de studie van de NOTs, ja, iedereen die de NOTs bestudeert krijgt zo’n rekening, ja, als je de Sea Org verlaat, het elitecorps van Scientology, word je geacht die rekening te betalen. Of wanneer je je Sea Org contract verbreekt. Gotcha! Dinsdag zei McShane nog dat Scientology niets in rekening brengt voor het bestuderen van de NOTs.

Zenon gaat door. Hij wil weten of enig onderdeel van de NOTs in andere cursussen is gebruikt. McShane hield eerder immers bij hoog en bij laag vol dat alleen Class IX Auditors de NOTs te zien krijgen, en dat zijn slechts zo’n 400 mensen. Zenon heeft nu gedetailleerde informatie in handen waaruit blijkt dat mensen die OT6 en OT7 doen (en dat zijn er duizenden geweest) grote delen van de NOTs te bestuderen krijgen, bij elkaar zo’n tachtig procent van de NOTs.

Zenon: “Is enig deel van de internet NOTs ooit – dat wil zeggen: hetzij vroeger, hetzij nu – onderdeel geweest van enige andere cursus dan de Class IX Auditors Course?”
McShane is lang stil. Dan zegt hij aarzelend: “Delen ervan worden in OT6 gebruikt.” zegt hij.

“En in OT7?” vraagt Zenon.
McShane aarzelt weer. “Nee,” zegt hij dan.

Zenon slaat terug: “Maandag heb ik u gevraagd welk niveau u zelf heeft behaald; u antwoordde dat u OT6 was, en u antwoordde bevestigend dat dit betekende dat u alleen persoonlijke kennis had van het materiaal tot aan OT6, en niet hoger.”
McShane wordt nerveuzer. “Ik kan me die vraag, ehm, dat antwoord, niet herinneren.”

Zenons stem wordt nu donderend. “Worden of werden de NOTs, in hun geheel of gedeeltelijk, op enig moment gebruikt in enige andere cursus dan de Class IX Auditors Course?”
McShane: “Eh, delen van de NOTs worden gebruikt in OT6 en OT7. Maar ik heb je lijst gezien waarin je beweert dat een stuk of twintig, dertig individuele NOTs worden gebruikt in OT6 en OT7, en dat is niet waar.”

Gotcha again.

Zenon: “En hoeveel mensen precies hebben OT6 en OT7 gedaan?”
McShane: “… eh, … eh, ik schat zo’n vijf- tot zevenduizend.”

Zenon heeft genoeg. Hij hoeft zijn nieuwe getuigen niet meer op te roepen.

*

MAGNUSSON MAG NU EEN poging doen de aangerichte schade te repareren. McShane, die tijdens zijn verhoor door Zenon zo nerveus was dat zijn benen onbeheersbaar trilden, ontspant zich eindelijk: zijn beproeving is voorbij. En uit pure opluchting begint hij te ratelen: hij gooit er nogmaals uit wat Zenon wilde horen, maar ditmaal uit vrije wil.

Magnusson: “Die betalingen, die rekeningen voor de Class IX auditors, zijn die pro forma?”

McShane: “Ja, die zijn pro forma. U moet weten, de opleiding voor Class IX Auditors is lang, en al die tijd krijgen ze gratis supervisie, gratis kost en inwoning, en medische hulp van de kerk, en we willen niet dat mensen meteen na het afsluiten van de cursus weg gaan, dat zou betekenen dat ze het materiaal voor niets kunnen bestuderen. We investeren veel in deze mensen, en dat willen we er natuurlijk uithalen. Zij moeten later de gewone leden auditeren. Daarom hebben we deze pro forma rekening ontworpen.”

Bingo. Onder de Zweedse wet staat alles waarvoor je een tegenprestatie verwacht, elke “ruil” waaraan een verplichting vastzit, gelijk aan een betaling. En McShane legt hier uit dat deze mensen moeten werken, dat de kerk profijt heeft van hun prestatie (het auditeren van gewone leden) en dat ze hun “gratis” kost en inwoning moeten terugverdienen. Done. McShane heeft de verhalen van Zenons getuigen bevestigd.

*

DAN WORDEN ALSNOG de slotpleidooien gehouden. Magnusson is kort en saai. Hij somt voor de zoveelste keer al Zenons vermeende fouten en inbreuken op, maar beargumenteert niets. De man mist overtuiging, inspiratie en bovendien de creativiteit om alle gaten die Zenon in zijn standpunten en getuigen heeft geschoten, te repareren.

Zelfs ik, met mijn wrakke Zweeds, hoor het verschil tussen hem en Zenon. Zenon spreekt bevlogen, hij argumenteert, hij bouwt redeneringen op, maakt afwegingen, trekt conclusies, bespreekt conflicten en wijst op consequenties. Hij wist de rechtbank erop dat hij hier degene is die het auteursrecht verdedigt en Magnusson degene is die het ondermijnt.

Magnusson claimt immers dat er geen publicatie plaatsvindt als 25.000 mensen een auteursrechtelijk beschermd stuk bestuderen, zelfs niet als zij ervoor betalen: het enige dat je hoeft te doen is geheimhouding van ze te vergen en een lidmaatschapsysteem te ontwerpen. Nu, als de rechtbank dat principe overneemt, dan liggen prachtige tijden in het verschiet voor Zenons eigen Vrije Scientology Kerk! En niet alleen voor hem: ook anderen kunnen in “besloten” kring vrijelijk DVDs, video’s, boeken en computerprogramma’s tegen betaling verspreiden, zolang ze maar eisen stellen aan het lidmaatschap van de “besloten” kring. De rechtbank luistert aandachtig.

Zenon beweert dat de OTs en NOTs wel als gepubliceerd moeten worden beschouwd, en dat auteursrechtbescherming niet zonder verplichtingen komt: de plicht om toe te staan dat mensen kopieën voor eigen gebruik te maken, de plicht te aanvaarden dat er publiekelijk uit wordt geciteerd of dat stukken worden geparafraseerd. Hij ontleedt vervolgens Scientology’s resterende argumenten en hakt ze aan mootjes.

EINDE RECHTSZAAK. De voorzitter deelt mee dat de uitspraak op 9 maart aanstaande beschikbaar zal zijn, vanaf 11 uur.

*

DE VOLGENDE DAG reizen we terug. De vlucht verloopt prettig, we krijgen zelfs nepkaviaar geserveerd.

Dan, op Schiphol, gaat het mis. We laten onze paspoorten bij de douane zien en worden doorgewuifd. Zodra Zenon doorloopt, komt er een man in burgerkleding op hem af. “Douane, opiumwet. Wilt u alstublieft meekomen?” Zenon wordt naar en zijkamertje gebracht en ook ik moet mee. Daar wachten nog vier douanebeambten ons op, allemaal in burgerkledij. Al onze bagage – twee gewone tassen, de Samsonite met 25 kilo dossiers, de kartonnen doos van The Total Litigation Company van tien kilo, mijn computertas, mijn handtas – wordt op tafels gelegd en geopend voor een uitgebreide controle. De man die de Samsonite doorzoekt verbaast zich over de grote hoeveelheid mappen. “Wij zijn alletwee in rechtszaken met Scientology verwikkeld,” leggen we uit. “Sterker, we komen juist van zo’n rechtszaak terug.” Zenon pakt een krant die tussen de rechtbankstukken zit en toont hem: er staat een paginagroot artikel over deze zaak in.

We zien een verandering op de strenge gezichten van de vijf ambtenaren. Ze ronden hun onderzoek af en we mogen weg.

Eenmaal thuis plegen we een paar telefoontjes en schakelen wat mensen in. Binnen de kortste keren wordt duidelijk wat er aan de hand was: de Nederlandse douane kreeg eerder die middag twee verschillende tips, “onafhankelijk” van elkaar, waarin Zenon en ik in groot detail werden beschreven, met vluchtnummer en al, en waarin werd meegedeeld dat wij cocaïne van Zweden naar Nederland zouden smokkelen. En uiteraard is de douane gehouden om elke tip die zij krijgt te onderzoeken, zelfs al vonden zijzelf deze tips nogal vreemd. (Dat zou ik ook denken. Cocaïne van Stockholm naar Amsterdam smokkelen? Dat is water naar de zee dragen – vanuit de woestijn.)

Zenon en ik leren een belangrijke les. Het niveau van lastigvallerij en gepest is de laatste week dramatisch toegenomen. We zijn dagenlang geschaduwd, er worden deurwaarders op Zenon afgestuurd, en nu zijn we beschuldigd van drugssmokkel. Scientology is een rekening aan het vereffenen.

Unbiased columnism # 2.7

Carrying water from the desert to the sea

Stockholm, January 26-27, 2001

[Previous installment: Unacceptable truths.] WHEN WE ARRIVE AT COURT for the final day, two women approach us. Zenon shakes hands with one of them; they speak for a short while, Zenon introduces her to me – it is the bailiff who was responsible for the raid in 1996 – and then she hands him an envelope. As it turns out, it is a demand for outstanding tax bills.

While discussing this – I am sure that Scientology has sicked the bailiff on him, while Zenon thinks that she came of her own accord – we walk inside. After a few meters, a man approaches Zenon and flashes a badge. I can’t see the badge and for a second I fear that this is a police officer who is going to arrest Zenon for god-knows-what; perhaps Scientology has filed some weird complaint against him of the kind that are filed against US critics all the time. The man seems angry and grabs Zenon’s arm. Zenon calms him somewhat, and they have a short discussion; then the man hands Zenon an envelope too and a paper for him to sign. It turns out to be another demand, this one for his study loan. The idiotic part is that both bailiffs came from the same office. (Which also means that they sent three people in order to hand over two letters. Isn’t that a tad inefficient?)

This is no coincidence. I am sure that somebody has tipped somebody or has pulled some strings. This must be Scientology’s revenge for Zenon’s new witnesses, and for his claim that McShane has come very close to perjury.

9:30

ZENON SUBMITS TO the court that McShane has not been telling the truth and that he can prove as much. Magnusson, of course, objects: isn’t this the exact same evidence that was at one point rejected by the court because Zenon didn’t file his briefs in time? Quite some discussion ensues. Zenon argues that yes, indeed, that was the case, and he would not have been able to bring up this evidence nor would he have had a need to do so if it hadn’t been for the fact that in Tuesday’s deposition of McShane, Magnusson himself suddenly brought in this new claim that no money was charged for the NOTs. But since Magnusson has brought up this claim, it is Zenon’s goddamn right to refute it – especially since McShane lied in his testimony.

Magnusson acts all upset over this vicious suggestion that his most honourable client hasn’t been telling the truth, and tells the court so, with this embarrassed and shy smile of his that by now I have come to recognise as a performance, meaning “I apologise to the court that I had to bring this clown Panoussis into their respected presence, so would you please disregard what he is saying right now, it is simply too stupid,” or something to that effect.

And then Zenon explodes with cold anger. Didn’t Magnusson bring in four witnesses that have to quite some degree disqualified themselves? Didn’t we have Small hiding the fact that he was actively employed by RTC when he rushed to their defence? Didn’t we have Mikael Nyström who had said that Usenet postings could not be falsified, and who now admitted that they could – actually, that some people sit with their hands right in the cookie jar? Didn’t we have the notary public vowing that she had made a random selection of the Monkey NOTs, while now it transpired that she selected only those Monkey NOTs that she “recognised” as infringing? And on top of that, now we have Magnusson’s main witness, actually his client, evading the truth and perhaps downward lying to us. For god’s sake: doesn’t Zenon then has a right to prove his point, especially when it concerns something that Magnusson has only recently brought in?

The Chair seems inclined to see things Zenon’s way on this, but is justifiably concerned about the court’s schedule. Hearing new witnesses will disrupt the proceedings, it would mean that the case needs to be adjourned and would proceed well into next week. Besides, there is a procedural problem: our first and main witness is Italian, and according to Italian law, witnesses cannot testify via telephone. Thus, she would need to be flown over.

The court would like to know all names of the witnesses; yesterday, Zenon only filed the name of the first one. I scrutinise McShane’s face when Zenon lists the people willing to testify:

  1. Maria Pia Gardini from Italy; a Class IX Auditor who was invoiced immediately for the NOTs; no deferred payment. Besides, she knows the material rather well. She is adamant that most of the NOTs are included in OT6 and OT7.
  2. Michael Philip Pattinson, from Los Angeles, California. [I see McShane’s face sagging. Then he notices that I saw it, and for the next ten minutes he averts his eyes.] Michael Pattinson can testify that huge part of the NOTs pack is included in OT6 and OT7.
  3. A former member from Austria, who has done OT6 and later on saw the NOTs on the Internet. He can testify that a huge part of them is included in OT6.

Magnusson claims that all of this is not relevant. The parishioners do not pay for the material but for the course as a whole. The Chair intervenes: Zenon has a solid point. What if we put McShane in the witness stand again and ask him these questions once more? Magnusson can’t very well oppose this. There we go…

9:50

MCSHANE TAKES THE witness chair. The atmosphere in the court room is tense, very tense. We all know what is at stake.

Zenon: Let’s first clarify definitions. For the purpose of this deposition, “NOTs” is all the material included in attachment 37 and nothing else. That is what I define as NOTs.
McShane: That is not the church’s definition.

Z: That is irrelevant. In this interrogation, I define NOTs as exhibit 37.
Magnusson intervenes. How do we know that these are the original NOTs? [Dork. He has been claiming that they are all along.]

Z: I am talking about the NOTs such as they are in attachment 37, from page 24 and on. Mr. McShane, have the NOTs, either in their entirety or partly, ever been part of any other course except for the Class IX Auditors Course?
McShane: [speaking slowly, and very aware of what he is saying] There are parts of NOTs, the description of NOTs, the principles of NOTs, that are contained in OT6. The actual issues themselves, the bulletins, that we call works, are not in OT6. But some of the principles are contained in OT6. Because OT6 is on the same subject. But you have to understand that NOTs, the NOTs, teaches a Class IX Auditor how to deliver those services, those processes, to a member.

Z: I want to know about concrete text mass. Are any of these NOTs texts part of another course than the Class IX Auditor Course?
McShane: There are parts that are in OT6.

Z: And in OT7?
McShane: [pause; he hesitates] No.

Z: How do you know? I asked you on Monday or Tuesday what level you yourself had attained; you answered that you were OT6, and I asked you specifically if everything up to OT6 was your personal knowledge and nothing above, and you confirmed that.
McShane: [pauses] I, ehm, I don’t exactly know what that, ehm, question was, what I said then. I know the texts of OT7.

Z: Have you seen my latest brief?
McShane: Yes.

Z: [picks up that brief] Have you read this brief? I expect that it was translated for you?
McShane: [nods twice]

Z: I would like you to comment upon the list of the re-use of NOTs that is included in that brief. And please bear in mind that I am not only asking you about current times but also about the past.

[From here on, Zenon uses what Scientology would most likely refer to as “Tone 40”: he is precise, insistent, commanding, demanding, and his voice makes it clear that he won’t be fooled with. For the first time during this whole court procedure, McShane suddenly answers in broken sentences. Again, my transcript is more or less verbatim.]

Z: Has any part of the NOTs in attachment 37, i.e. any part of the material from page 24 and onward, at any time been part of any course whatsoever other than the Class IX Auditors Course?
McShane: Yes, some parts of that material are used in OT6 and OT7. But I have read your list in which you claim that some, eh, 20 or 30 NOTs are part of OT6 or OT7. That is not true.

Z: In that case, let’s go through them one by one and assess which ones are part of OT6 or OT7. To start with, are any parts of NOTs series 1 such as it appears in exhibit 37 part of any other course than the Class IX Auditors Course?
McShane: I would have to have the OT6 course to compare them with and I don’t have that with me.

Z: Can you say approximately how much text mass of attachment 37 is included or has ever been included in other courses than the Class IX Auditor Course?
McShane: Ehm, in order to do that, I would need to make a comparison and I can’t do that here. [Hesitates] There are texts, there are parts of these texts, in OT7. But there is more in NOTs than there is in exhibit 37.

Z: The rest of the NOTs are not interesting; they are not part of this case. We are only talking about the NOTs material in exhibit 37 here. How many people did partake in OT6 and in OT7, approximately?
McShane: [pause] I would estimate probably some 5,000 to 7,000.

Z: These pro forma invoices, can you describe what is on them?
McShane: They are meant for employees, and it says something to the effect of, the persons name, what course the person is taking, and the worth, the value of the course. And the person promises that if he breaks the contract he will pay that money. It is an internal church procedure, and its purpose is to prevent somebody to join staff in order to get the courses for free. So it tells the person: it is part of your job that you get this for free, but if you leave without fulfilling your contract, your have to pay.

Z: For how long are these contracts?
McShane: Which ones?

Z: The Sea Org contracts for instance, of which Class IX Auditors are members.

 
[Comment: it is interesting to see how long it takes McShane to reply that Sea Org members sign a billion year contract. Yet, Zenon has already put this bit of information in his Wednesday January 25 brief. The court knows.]

McShane: The Sea Org is eternal within the church. More religions, other religions also … like the Jesuits, or certain religions have, and it’s the staff who dedicate their entire life to their religion and we sign a kind of a pledge, ehm, for a billion years of service. It’s a symbolic gesture of your dedication.

Z: If a year or two after signing this fraternity membership, and completing the course you break the contract, will this pro forma invoice be brought up?
McShane: If the member leaves the church there is no bill. If he wants to continue receiving services, he would be responsible to not only pay that course, but all services. But there are circumstances when somebody has left that that somebody does not have to pay at all.

Z: Is it correct that these pro forma invoices are known as the “Freeloader’s Bill”?
McShane: Yes.

Z: Is it correct that the church claims these “Freeloader Debts” as amounts receivable on its balance sheets as submitted to the US Internal Revenue Service?
Magnusson interrupts, and wants to know where these questions are going to. The Chair answers instead: the obvious point of this line of questioning is whether these invoices are symbolic or not.

Z: Is it true that these Freeloader Debts are reported to the US tax offices?
McShane: [smiling] No.

Z: Does the church have an internal reporting system that weekly reports these Freeloader Debts to Scientology management, as part of the “Income Notes Collections Summary”?

 
[Comment: We received this information just that same morning. Thank you – you know who you are.]

McShane: It is possible … there could be … I am not familiar with such a system. I don’t know.

Zenon has gotten enough out of McShane. Yes, these bills are real, and yes, parts of the NOTs Pack are included in OT6 and OT7, and McShane didn’t say so before. That is all he had to prove. Zenon ends his interrogation and retracts his request to hear the new witnesses. The court looks relieved.

10:10

MAGNUSSON’S TURN: McShane gets his chance to repair some of the damage done. While Zenon was questioning McShane, he was ghastly nervous. Our supporter, who was sitting right behind McShane, later told us that McShane was shaking and that his legs couldn’t stop trembling. Only when Magnusson interrogates him does he calm down. Actually, McShane relaxes so much that out of sheer relief , he starts babbling and again confirms what Zenon just got out of him, but this time of his own accord:

McShane gives us the same story about OT5 that we have heard a few times before in this court, but this time with an emphasis on “services” and “exchange”.

McShane: “Solo NOTs are related to NOTs but are not NOTs. On Solo NOTs the member needs to have some understanding of what NOTs are and what he will be addressing at that level so some of the principles are related to him, so that he understands what he is doing.”

McShane: “The pro forma invoices relate to training, the costs of living et cetera. That is because the Class IX Auditor Course is only for staff members – and there is only one church that trains Class IX Auditors, that is our Flag church, in Florida – and that church invests a lot in those persons. Not only the supervision, room and board, but also the medical expenses and dental expenses, and that is how this pro forma invoice came about, because people were coming in for these free services doing these courses for a year or two and then leaving, without any exchange for the church! That is why we came up with this.”

Zenon loves this. In almost every other line, McShane is confirming that in exchange for work people are allowed to study the NOTs. Under Swedish law, that means that the NOTs are not for free. Any exchange whereby you give something away but expect something in return, may simply not be labelled “free”.

*

IT IS ONLY AFTERWARDS that we discover that Zenon’s job could have been easier. Jeta points out in a message that we only find after the court sessions have finished, that the Freeloader’s Bill is actually part of the NOTs:


HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 NOVEMBER 1978R-1
ADDITION OF 15 OCTOBER 1981

C O N F I D E N T I A L
NED FOR OTs
ADVANCED COURSES SPECIALIST COURSE
CHECKSHEET
PART TWO

[…]

STUDENT COURSE COMPLETION

[…]

B. STUDENT ATTEST AT C & A:

I attest (a) I have enrolled on the course, (b) I have been properly invoiced for the course as a contracted staff member,

10:20

THE CHAIR ANNOUNCES that we will have short break, after which final pleas will be held. The Chair wishes to know how long both parties will approximately speak. Magnusson claims and hour, and Zenon says, oops!-ishly, “The court said that brief is better, so I went home and wrote fifty pages of notes…” Some judges can’t help but smile.

The pleas will be taped. [Yes, we will get hold of these tapes and then translate Zenon’s plea to English.]

10:35

MAGNUSSON GOES FIRST. He focuses very much on first publication, quotes a lot of foreign rulings, and seems to come up with more rhetoric than legal arguments. He also claims that the Court in my case made a severe error, because they believed that 25,000 copies of OT3 were made while that number only pertained to the amount of people who had studied them. This is a blatant lie: the court in my case never said anything to this account. They knew that people just studied the same copies; one of my lawyers had even made a joke about it: if in a porn video shop fifty people see a flick one after the other, all of them seeing it on their own, it is still fifty people who have seen it and the flick is still publicly shown, not privately.

11:20 – Magnusson is done! That was remarkably short. Last time he was excruciatingly lengthy.

11:30 – Zenon’s turn. [These are just short notes. A full transcript will be made available later on.]

ZENON EXPLAINS TO the court Scientology’s principle of “acceptable truths” and illustrates it with the testimonies that we have heard. Vorm, Small, Alexandersson, and McShane himself – all of them have been proven to have been withholding parts of the truth, or sometimes reverted to claiming that “they didn’t know” when an answer would be too damaging. The court must also take into account that Vorm, Small and McShane have big economic, social and religious stakes in what they say. They are not objective witnesses, they have their position and their religion to defend.

Zenon at one point openly slights Magnusson: while going through the Dutch case and CST being part of it, he says that “RTC had a better lawyer in that country than the one that they employed here…” I only manage to keep a straight face because I knew that the joke was coming. Not even a hint of a smile crosses my lips. Magnusson contains himself. But fifteen seconds later I hear a deep sigh escaping him.

Discussing the identity of the texts, Zenon stresses that modifications abound, different versions have been used through time, and that texts are often revised. We simply have no means of knowing what exactly is registered with the US Copyright Office; it is masked, after all. Zenon explains that there is no contradiction between his claim that this material is Scientology’s material on the one hand, and his claim that there is no equality between the Scientology’s material and what he published on the other. Only the text that is registered with the US Copyright Office counts, and RTC has not proven that the materials that Zenon published are identical to those that are registered.

Zenon harps upon McShane’s definition of “infringement”: paraphrasing is infringement; the use of certain words is a infringement, quoting is an infringement, actually, any use of any part of any text outside the church is an infringement. When Zenon quoted mere captions of a part of OT2 in the Fishman Affidavit, without ever including the actual sections underneath each caption, that was labelled as an infringement too. And what is more: RTC’s method of comparison never allowed the court to assess how much he quoted of a passage, and thus doesn’t allow the court to consider whether quoting such a passage is within the limits of the law.

Publication. Zenon lists the reasons why the OTs and NOTs should be considered to have been legally published (an assessment from which the right to quote and the right to make private copies follow, and from which it will follow that the primary court, the administrative court and parliament will again be able to give copies of the OTs and NOTs to the public as per offentlighetsprincipen). The amount of people who accessed the NOTs (5,000 to 7,000) and the OTs (25,000); the translation of the OTs into four languages; the commercial offering of the OTs and NOTs to all eight million Scientologists via the Scientology magazine “Source”; the accessibility (all you need to do is to qualify) of OTs and NOTs for all Scientologists; and the paying for these courses – each and every one of these elements is in itself sufficient to constitute publication.

Jurisprudence has it that the “closed circle”, the “limited circulation” that a text can enjoy without constituting legal publication, is very small. Now let’s look at the church’s own figures: 25,000 (members who have done OT2 and OT3) times 6,000 dollars (the price for each of these courses) times 2 (OT2 and OT3) times 9 (crowns in the dollar) amounts to 2,7 billion SEK. Would any circle that generates such an amount ever be considered closed?

The pro forma invoices are not pro forma. They build upon the principle of exchange. In order to partake these courses, students are supposed to produce for the church. These Class IX Auditors who study the NOTs do pay in work: only this morning, McShane literally said: “We don’t want them to have these courses for free.” They work for years on end, and produce the huge revenues that Scientology gets from the courses that they administer.

12:10 – 13: 15 – Lunch break.

ZENON POINTS OUT to the court that if they accept Magnusson’s stance on copyrights, that would have severe repercussions on copyright law. Actually, the law would need to be completely re-written. After all, Magnusson claims that private circles can be really big, and that distributing material within such a circle gives you all rights but no obligations whatsoever. If that point of view is accepted by the court, Zenon’s own Free Church of Scientology will have a ball. All Zenon needs to do is set up membership, invent some requirements that members have to meet, and treat the material with the same confidentiality that Scientology does. Once he has done that, he can circulate this same material to up to 25.000 members without committing infringement. After all, it is only within a closed circle, isn’t it? What is more, this same principle will be applicable to other material by other people. People can set up closed circles for the distribution of DVDs, of computer programs, of videos. Nobody would be obliged to pay anything to any copyright holder as long as they apply some membership conditions and confidentiality.

As for the material: RTC’s argument obscures that Zenon did not simply post parts of OT2 and OT3. What he actually did was to publish a court file, to instruct the general public. The OT-fragments were just a very small part of the Fishman file. Article 26 of the Swedish copyright law, explicitly permits the publication of copyrighted texts that are part of a court case, if this is done within the frame of reporting about the case itself.

Regarding the right to quote: Zenon quoted only 3 pages of the 300 page OT2 and the 25 pages from the 200 page OT3: that is less than 6%. Compare this fact to how McShane portrayed the severity of Zenon’s infringement: “From OT2 [Panoussis] infringed upon 10 individual works and 4 of those works are infringed upon 100%, one is infringed upon for 94%, one for 84%, one for 75%, one for 62%, one for 20%, and the last one for 7%. I did the same calculations for OT3. 15 works were infringed upon. 13 of those for 100%, one for 66%, and the last one for 29 %.” That sounds serious, Zenon says, but in all actuality we are only talking about less then 6% of OT2 and OT3.

European Convention of Human Rights. Scientology has always blocked discussion: sometimes via their demand for secrecy, sometimes by (threatening to) sue, most often by either denying their own teachings or claiming that quotes are “taken out of context”.

Religious freedom: other Scientologists, not part of the official church, are not allowed to practice their religion. McShane has even testified here that one of the reasons for RTC registering the advanced material was so that they could sue people who used the material outside the church. These people, the free Scientologists, have a constitutional right to be able to practice their religion without having to pay any particular organisation.

The damages claimed should go down in proportion to the claims that RTC loses in this appeal. Apart from that, RTC claims that their “market value” has gone down and that they have suffered “commercial damage”, which is a rather remarkable claim for an organisation that purports not to be charging for the material it is suing over. As for immaterial damages: RTC does not represent and is not entitled to damages on behalf of those members of the public that suffer “irreparable damage” by reading this material “without being prepared”, nor is RTC entitled to damages on behalf of individual Scientologists that might have to retake their courses. Finally, when it comes to “hurt feelings”, only the author himself can be hurt, and the right to such damages does not follow the copyrights; in other words, RTC cannot legally have hurt feelings.

[Meanwhile, Magnusson’s aide is looking at Zenon and me with piercing eyes. If looks could kill… The effect is however quite ruined by his nervousness. The guy has developed a nervous tic in the past half hour and is continuously bobbing his head.]

How can RTC claim to have suffered damages, by the way? They only license the material to the Advanced Organisations, it is them who lose clients, not RTC. If anybody should have sued Zenon, it should have been those Advanced Orgs.

[By this time I am sure that McShane wishes that he had had Zenon as his lawyer (and Magnusson as his opponent). Even I, with my shaky Swedish, can hear that while Magnusson was merely making statements, Zenon is developing arguments, and that some of them are rather ingenious. He is not reading from his paper, he uses them as mental reminders and builds his arguments from these stepping stones.]

Zenon goes through the various copies made / infringements that RTC claims, and the evidence for it. Nyström’s testimony proved that anybody could have made the disputed May 2 posting. But RTC never bothered to look for evidence and didn’t ask for any logs: perhaps they did not really want to assess who the culprit was? As for the bailiff: when RTC asked her to go through his computer files, she was ordered to search for more than infringements. Neither the word “Vorlon” nor “Ward” are part of RTC’s texts, these are the names of people. That clearly demonstrates that RTC was after Zenon’s correspondence, not (only) after the material. As for the copy of the OTs and NOTs that Zenon handed in to the administrative court: Scientology itself had stolen that copy (the thief has been identified and Zenon names him in court: Thierry Duchaunac) and Zenon only returned a copy that the primary court itself had produced.

Legal costs: McShane counts the lobbying with US congress and the Swedish government to seal the OTs and NOTs and to change the law regarding offentlighetsprincipen and the guarding of the OTs and NOTs in court and in parliament, as legal costs and wants Zenon to foot that bill, but none of these costs have anything to do with the court case itself. RTC could have claimed these costs as damages, but probably feared that it wouldn’t get them; and thus, they made them part of the legal bill.

RTC insists on having their material masked. That in itself makes establishing of identity and other evidence so much more difficult: suddenly we need notaries and complicated comparisons. Those costs are the consequence of RTC’s own desires and demands, and they can hardly expect Zenon to pay for that.

Meanwhile, Magnusson has produced an enormous amount of copies, many of them unnecessary; and all these are put on Zenon’s bill. Besides, the amount of payment that Magnusson demands for his own work is enormous as compared to what lawyers usually get.

14:05 – Zenon is done. 90 minutes all in all.

In this case, too, bills for legal costs need to be handed in. Zenon asks for 25,000 SEK, that is: 2525 USD – for lost hours of work, copies, stamps and so on. Magnusson’s turn. He hands in a bill for 1,665,000 SEK (168,000 USD):

  Lawyer’s fees: 1,400,000 SEK
  Translations 160,000 SEK
  Work McShane: 75,000 SEK
  Travel costs McShane: 20,000 SEK

Zenon comments upon the amount demanded for McShane’s work: it is McShane’s job to travel from court to court. To put that here as expenses, is slightly ridiculous. And as for Magnusson’s fee, he won’t even comment upon it.

The court announces that the ruling will be available from the secretariat of the court in six weeks from now: on March 9, 2001, at 11:00.

*

SATURDAY AFTERNOON we take the plane back home. We have a nice flight and even get served (fake) caviar. We read Dutch newspapers and work on this report. After landing, we stack an enormous amount of luggage on a trolley: apart from our bags, we have a 25 kg Samsonite with legal papers and a 10 kg carton with more of the same.

We show our passports at customs. The guy is not interested and waves us to pass on. The moment Zenon moves, another guy in civilian clothes comes up to him and flashes him a badge. “Customs. Opium law. We want to search your luggage. Would you please follow me into this room?” I am whisked off as well. Four other people, all plainclothes customs officers, are waiting for us there. All our bags are put in line and are searched thoroughly. The man searching the Samsonite dutifully sifts through the binders and is amazed at the number of them. “The both of us are being sued by Scientology, you know, this cult,” we explain. “Actually, we are just returning from court.” Zenon picks up a newspaper that was on top of the binder and shows them a one-page article with a picture of us: “Zenon’s lonely war against Scientology”. (A stupid headline, by the way. We are not lonely. We have all of a.r.s. to back us up and help us – and it did.)

Slowly, something dawns upon the faces of the police. We are cleared within five minutes and allowed to leave. They apologise profusely.

When we get home we make a couple of calls and pull a few strings. Soon we discover that the Dutch Customs did not receive one but two tips, “independent” of one another, both describing Zenon and me at great length, and giving a rather detailed account of how we would be smuggling cocaine from Sweden into the Netherlands. And of course, Customs have to investigate every tip they receive. We had to be stopped and searched, even though Customs themselves found the tips a bit weird. (So would I. Smuggling coke from Sweden into Holland? That’s like carrying water to the sea – from the desert, at that).

Zenon and I learn one important lesson from this. Scientology’s harassment of us has stepped up remarkably: the tails that were put on us in Stockholm, the bailiff that was sicked upon Zenon, and now accusations of coke smuggling. This is how we reply:


From: Zenon Panoussis
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, nl.scientology
Subject: First and last warning.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:08:16 +0100
Message-ID: <3A7354E0.D9226C7A@xs4all.nl>

Something happened. You will read about it in Karin’s next (and last) Stockholm report, due tomorrow. However, I have a point to make in the direction of the CoS, now at once.

The following is part of a mail from me to someone. I just post it as is so I don’t have to repeat myself.

Forget it. Anonymous phone calls. Even thinking of investigations is a waste of time. The same goes for most of what they do.

What they should think of is that, so far, we have been harassing them openly, while they are now harassing us anonymously. What they forget to take into account is that we are much better at anonymous harassment than they will ever be. Thus, if this continues, we might sooner or later take their example and pay them back in their own currency.

Actually I will post these last three paragraphs on ars/nls and give them one single chance to think it over. If they don’t get it, if they choose to change the war from “clean” to “dirty”, so much the worse for them. They’ll get a taste of their own medicine that no toothpaste will ever take away.»

Scieno drones, please pay attention to the subject line. This is your first *and last* warning. Any more of this kind of shit, any at all, and you will not know what the fuck is hitting you. Beware. You have been advised.

Z

[Unbiased columnism is a double series of seven court reports on the proceedings of Scientology versus Zenon Panoussis. This series covers the Jan 2001 sessions. Rhe first series – from May-June 1998 – starts here: Zenon does research.]

Panoussis vs Scientology, dag 5/6

Onaanvaardbare waarheden

Stockholm, 24-25 januari 2001

[Vorige aflevering: Kinderachtige spelletjes.]

DE ZITTING IS VOOR twee dagen opgeschort. Vrijdag gaan we verder: dan worden de slotpleiten gehouden, en dat was het. Daarna kunnen we alleen maar afwachten (en tot Xenu bidden).

McShanes stellige bewering dat Class IX Auditors niet betalen voor het ‘privilege’ de NOTs the mogen bestuderen en dat alleen zij de NOTs te zien krijgen, zit ons dwars. We geloven simpelweg niet dat McShane de waarheid vertelt, de waarheid, de hele waarheid en niets dan de waarheid.

Wanneer we later Zenons ondervraging van McShane doornemen slaan we onszelf voor het hoofd. Verdomme! Wat een stommelingen zijn we! We stelden vragen over betalingen en ‘vaste donaties’, maar hebben het helemaal niet over de Freeloader’s Debt gehad… Scientology laat stafleden zogenaamd gratis cursussen volgen, maar zodra je weg wilt krijg je alsnog een rekening gepresenteerd. Waarschijnlijk krijgen Class IX Auditors een vette rekening voor hun studie van de NOTs wanneer ze staflid-áf worden. McShane had ons een ‘aanvaardare waarheid’ verteld, een bekende praktijk binnen Scientology: een vraag zo interpreteren of beantwoorden dat je om de feitelijke vraag heen draait en net niet echt liegt, zodat je de vraag in feite ontduikt. Zenon post allerijl een bericht op alt.religion.scientology en stelt een serie korte vragen:


From: Zenon Panoussis
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, nl.scientology, alt.clearing.technology
Subject: The NOTs
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:49:32 +0100
Message-ID: <3A6F5BFC.17BF9C75@xs4all.nl>

McShane zei vandaag onder ede dat
– alleen Class IX auditors de NOTs zelf te lezen krijgen; scientology-leden die de nieuwe OT5 cursus doen, op basis van de NOTs geauditeerd worden maar zelf de NOTs niet te lezen krijgen;
– alle Class IX auditors zijn in dienst van CoS; de NOTs bestuderen is onderdeel van hun werk; ze hoeven nimmer te betalen voor de Class IX auditor cursussen; CoS heeft *nimmer* iemand iets in rekening gebracht voor de NOTs, noch heeft zij donaties gevraagd voor deze specifieke cursus;
– tot aan 1998 hebben 325 toestemming gekregen om binnen CoS de NOTs te lezen; na 1998 hebben naar schatting nog zo’n 100 CoS-leden de NOTs gelezen.

Wanneer je ook maar *iets* hiervan kunt weerleggen, mail me dan onmiddellijk.

Z

WE ONTVANGEN EEN aantal uitermate interessante reacties hierop. Een paar ex-leden die nogal hoog in Scientology zijn geweest, bevestigen dat Class IX Auditors een Freeloader’s Bill kregen, zodat er *inderdaad* betaling werd verwacht voor de NOTs. Anderen vertellen ons dat niet alleen Class IX Auditors de NOTs daadwerkelijk onder ogen kregen: grote delen van de NOTs zijn onderdeel van OT6 en OT7.

Eén e-mail in het bijzonder is veelbelovend. Een vrouw die voormalig Sea Org lid is en die zelf de Class IX Auditing Course heeft gedaan, heeft daadwerkelijk voor de NOTs betaald. Bij haar heeft Scientology geen Freeloader’s Bill uitgeschreven: ze wilden het geld meteen van haar hebben. En wat belangrijker is: deze vrouw is bereid om onder ede te getuigen. Ze is in de positie om de meeste van McShanes beweringen over de NOTs te weerleggen.

Zenon belt haar op. De twee hebben een lang gesprek waarin de vrouw een uitgebreid en gedetailleerd verslag doet van welke NOTs waar gebruikt worden. Ze is een droomgetuige – en van harte bereid om haar medewerking te verlenen.

*

ZENON SCHRIJFT OGENBLIKKELIJK een stuk dat hij woensdagmiddag bij de rechtbank indient; daarin doet hij verslag van het nieuwe bewijs. Het enige – grote – struikelblok is dat we officieel klaar zijn met het doornemen van bewijs en het verhoren van getuigen, en dat het in dit stadium uitermate moeilijk is om de discussie opnieuw te beginnen.

Aan de andere kant hebben we McShane nu betrapt op iets dat gevaarlijk dicht tegen meineed aanligt. Wat hij heeft gedaan is meer dan “aanvaardbare waarheden” debiteren: hij heeft zich in bochten gewrongen, hij heeft informatie achtergehouden en duidelijke vragen ontdoken. Als Magnusson verhindert dat Zenon deze getuigenis vrijdag inbrengt, zullen we die informatie later alsnog bewijzen en als we dat doen, moet de zaak mogelijk van voren af aan hernomen worden – terwijl Magnussons voornaamste getuige, ja zelfs de partij die hij in de rechtszaak vertegenwoordigt, zichzelf ongeloofwaardig heeft gemaakt; om van erger dan ‘ongeloofwaardig’ maar niet te spreken.

We hebben geen idee wat er nu te gebeuren staat. We hebben RTC in de greep, maar we weten niet wast het resultaat op korte termijn zal zijn. Magnusson kan dit bewijs simpelweg accepteren en met ferme tegenzin toegeven dat zijn cliënt een ‘fout’ heeft gemaakt. Magnusson kan het nieuwe bewijs koste wat kost tegenhouden, en op procedurele gronden kan de rechtbank hem daarin gelijk geven. De rechtbank kan ons toestaan de nieuwe getuige te horen, maar in dat geval is het schema voor vrijdag compleet in de war – de hele dag zou besteed worden aan de pleidooien – zodat Zenon een paar dagen langer in Stockholm zal moeten blijven. De nieuwe getuige kan afgewezen worden, maar in dat geval zal Zenon ervoor zorgen dat haar getuigenis later wordt ingediend, wat op zich al voldoende reden is om de zaak te heropenen indien hij verliest. Welk van deze mogelijkheden zal het zijn? We hebben geen flauw idee.

*

DE VOLGENDE DAG, donderdag, belt Zenon Magnusson op en vraagt hem of RTC de feiten die hij in zijn laatste stuk opsomt, toegeeft. Magnusson weigert hem daar antwoord op te geven. Zenon belt de rechtbank, die hem meedeelt dat ze voor drie uur die middag een antwoord van Magnusson willen hebben en dat zijzelf momenteel geen beslissing kunnen nemen over de toelaatbaarheid van zijn nieuwe bewijs, aangezien niet alle rechters nu aanwezig zijn. Zenon gaat naar de rechtbank om de tapes van de verhoren van McShane op te halen, en tegen de tijd dat hij daar arriveert is Magnussons antwoord binnen gekomen.

Magnussons verontrusting is zichtbaar in zijn antwoord. Met tegenzin geeft hij toe dat er inderdaad facturen worden uitgeschreven voor de Class IX Auditors, maar dat die rekeningen slechts een “symbolische formaliteit” zijn, en geen echte rekeningen. Alleen degenen die de Sea Org willen verlaten (maar niet helemaal uit Scientology willen stappen) worden verwacht die rekening te betalen. En heus, van alle Sea Org leden vertrekt haast niemand, echt niet: nog geen een procent stapt uit de Sea Org. Het hof moet begrijpen dat het feit dat RTC dit nu zegt, slechts een genereus gebaar is ten opzichte van Panoussis, een gebaar bedoeld om de procedure te vereenvoudigen, en dat dit niet inhoudt dat RTC Zenon in deze gelijk geeft. En wat betreft de NOTs die onderdeel zouden zijn van OT6 en OT7, dat is klinkklare nonsens.

*

ONDERTUSSEN BENADEREN OOK anderen Zenon. Op donderdagavond hebben we vier getuigen verzameld die allemaal in staat en bereid zijn om onder ede te verklaren dat zowat tachtig procent van de NOTs onderdeel uitmaakt van OT6 en OT7, en dat elke Scientologist die deze cursussen volgt, daarvoor betalen moet. Dat betekent dat er duizenden mensen zijn betaald hebben voor het bestuderen van de NOTs. Dat is precies wat Zenon al die tijd heeft beweerd.

Wat meer is: we hebben het bewijs in handen dat McShane een onbetrouware getuige is.

We zien er plots naar uit McShane morgenochtend in de rechtszaal te zien.

[Volgende (en laatste) aflevering: Water naar de zee dragen.]

Unbiased columnism # 2.6

Unacceptable truths

Stockholm, January 24-25, 2001

[Previous installment: Child games.] THE COURT HAS ADJOURNED for two days. Friday we will resume: that day, pleas are to be held and that’s it. Afterwards, all we can do is wait for the ruling (and pray to Xenu).

McShane’s vehement assertion that no Class IX auditor ever pays for the ‘privilege’ to study the NOTs pack and that only Class IX auditors get to study this material, sits badly with us. We simply don’t believe that McShane is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

After some discussion between the two of us, we slap our heads. Damn!! How stupid can you get! We asked about payment and donations, but never asked McShane about the Freeloader’s Debt… Scientology often allows staff members to do courses with delayed payment: you’re off the hook as long as you stay in the church. Probably Class IX auditors are presented with a nice fat bill for the darned stuff when they leave… McShane had given us one of Scientology’s ‘acceptable truths’: he’d answered the questions only partially and twisted them a bit, so that he could escape saying what he didn’t want to be revealed. Hurriedly, Zenon posted to a.r.s. and came up with a set of concise questions:


From: Zenon Panoussis
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, nl.scientology,
alt.clearing.technology
Subject: The NOTs
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:49:32 +0100
Message-ID: <3A6F5BFC.17BF9C75@xs4all.nl>

McShane said today under oath that
– only the Class IX auditors get to read the actual NOTs; the CoS members that do the new OT 5 course are audited on the basis of the NOTs, but never get to actually read them;
– all the Class IX auditors are employed by the CoS; studying the NOTs is part of their job; they have never had to pay for the class IX auditor courses; the CoS has *never* charged anybody for the NOTs and neither has it ever asked for donations for these particular courses;
– Until 1998 about 325 people had been allowed to read the NOTs within the CoS; after 1998 approximately another 100 have read them within the CoS.

If you can refute any of this, please **e-mail** me at once.

Z

WE RECEIVED QUITE a number of interesting replies to this. A few ex-members who had been rather high in Scientology confirmed that Class IX Auditors were presented with a Freeloader’s bill, so that yes, payment was expected for the NOTs Pack. Others told us that not only Class IX Auditors got to see the actual NOTs Pack: huge parts of the NOTs Pack are part of OT6 and OT7.

One mail that we get seems particularly promising. A woman, a former Sea Org member who has done the Class IX Auditing Course herself, did pay for the NOTs. Unlike most others, in her case Scientology never put it on her Freeloader’s Bill: they just took the money. And what is far more interesting: this woman is prepared to testify to this under oath. She is in a position to refute most of McShane’s statement regarding the handling of the NOTs.

Zenon phones her. They have an elaborate discussion and she gives a very detailed account of what NOTs pertain where. She is the perfect witness – and quite willing to be one.

*

ZENON IMMEDIATELY writes a new brief that he files with the court on Wednesday afternoon, outlining the new evidence in detail. The one big hassle is that we are officially done with the reviewing of the evidence, and that it is rather difficult to bring in anything new at this stage.

Then again, we have caught McShane with something very close to perjury. This amounts to more than telling ‘acceptable truths’: he has been weaselling and withholding information that he was pressed for. If Magnusson stops us from bringing this testimony in on Friday, we will prove it afterwards anyway and if we do that, the whole case could have to be started all over again – while by then Magnusson’s prime witness, and actually the party that he is representing, will have been revealed to be dishonest, to say the least.

We have no clue what will happen. We have RTC by the balls on this, but we don’t know what the short-term result will be. Magnusson might simply accept the new evidence and squirmingly admit that his client made a ‘mistake’. Magnusson might vehemently oppose the new evidence, and, for procedural reasons, the court might accept his protest. The court might allow us to hear the new witness, but in that case Friday’s schedule is completely messed up – the whole day was to be devoted to the final pleas – so that Zenon will need to stay in Stockholm a few days more. The new witness might not be allowed to testify, but in that case Zenon is going to make damn sure that he files her testimony afterwards, thereby forcing the case to start all over, at least if he loses. Which one of this will it be? We don’t know.


Zenon’s January 24 brief (rough translation)

Svea hovrätt
Box 2290
103 17 Stockholm

Case 1096-98

Warren McShane has testified that the scientologists that can partake in the NOTs within the “church” don’t have to pay for this and that the “church” has never charged anyone for the privilege of partaking in these scriptures.

As a result of my posting of McShane’s statements to the internet, several people who either themselves have followed the Class IX Auditor Course (the course of which the original NOTs are a part) or have held high enough positions within scientology to know how the system works, have replied that McShane’s statements are wrong in several aspects.

The correct situation is as follows:

The NOTs-material goes under several names, and, apart from the NOTs texts that are the topic of this court case, it consists of other material. In the following, when I talk about the “NOTs”, I only refer to those parts of the NOTs that are labelled as attachment 37.

There are two categories of scientologists that are allowed to do the NOTs within the church: those who in this court case have been called “the priests” and in scientology are called “Class IX Auditors”, and ordinary scientologists partaking in various courses. According the “church’s” rules, Class IX Auditors must belong to the special department within scientology that is called the Sea Org. Before they are allowed to partake in the Class IX Auditor course, members of the Sea Org must sign a contract for a billion years – this is no typing error. After having completed their “priest course”, Class IX Auditors give courses to paying scientologists, as McShane has described. The compensation for Class IX Auditors consists of food, lodging and a minimal sum of cash; in 1994 it was 15 USD per week for a full-time job.

Although Class IX Auditors don’t have to pay immediately for the NOTs, they are charged for the course: several thousand dollars. In the event that they break their billion year contract and leave the movement before they die, payment will be demanded of them afterwards. Thus, one way or another, the “church” is charging for the NOTs material.

Apart from the fact that the complete NOTs material is part of the Class IX Auditor Course, substantial parts of the NOTs are included in the OT6 and OT7 courses for the ordinary paying scientologists. At least until 1994, approximately 80% of the NOTs were actually included in these courses and were allowed to be studied directly in their original form by the students of these two courses.

To put it more precisely: normal paying members who do the OT6- and OT7-courses can themselves read the following sections of the NOTs that are the subject of this court case:

Parts of series 1, the whole of the series 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 16, attachment 1 of series 18, the whole of series 19, 20 and 21, the parts “correction list” of series 24, the whole of series 25, 26R (of which parts are missing in attachment 37), 28 and 31, HCOB 29 October 1978 issue II, the whole of series 33, 37, 43 (including material from OT3), probably the whole of series 44, the whole of series 45 and 46, the first part of series 47, approximately half of series 49, the whole of series 51 and 55, approximately half of series 62, together with “correction actions on OT ser II flying ruds” (pages 170-172 in the copy of Stockholm’s tingsrätt’s administrative department).

The above mentioned parts of attachment 37 are included in the OT6 and OT7 courses, which, according to attachment 170, are being handed out in exchange for several thousand dollars in “fixed donations”. Approximately 10,000 paying scientologists have been following these courses, of which at least 3,000 had attained the corresponding levels already in 1994.

It is obvious from the above that the description of the NOTs use within the “church” that McShane gave in his testimony is incomplete, to say the least.

I request the court of appeals to order RTC to explain their stance on the above. Taking into consideration that the case is in a very advanced stage, this should be done as soon as possible. In case that RTC is unable to confirm these factual circumstances, I request that the pleas of January 26 shall be postponed, and that I am given the opportunity to put forward evidence to prove my claims.

I would like to remind the court that the statement “the church of scientology is charging for this material” is not new, but has been claimed by me ever since the beginning of the case in primary court. RTC’s refutation that payment is demanded for NOTs is however new, and was done within the frame of McShane’s testimony during the ongoing trial in the court of appeals.

I have verbally informed lawyer Magnusson of part of the above and will fax this brief to him directly.

Stockholm, 2000-01-24
Zenon Panoussis

THE NEXT DAY, Zenon phones Magnusson and asks him whether they will admit the facts that Zenon stated in his last brief. Magnusson refuses to answer the question. Zenon phones the court, which tells him that they want a reply from Magnusson before three in the afternoon and that they themselves can now not take a decision on it, because not all judges can be reached. Zenon goes to court to pick up the tapes from McShane’s testimonies, and by the time he is there, Magnusson’s reply has arrived.

Magnusson’s agitation can be discerned in his brief. He grudgingly admits that yes, indeed, there are invoices involved for the Class IX Auditors, but those are only a symbolical formality, not a real bill. Only those who wish to leave the Sea Org but not Scientology are expected to pay them. And besides, of all Sea Org staff, only one percent ever leaves. And the court must understand that RTC admitting this is merely a generous gesture towards Zenon, not an admittance of error of any sorts. As for NOTs being part of the OT6 and OT7 course, that is definitely not true.


Magnusson’s brief, January 25 2001
[Another rough translation; my aide in this claims that Magnusson’s brief was extremely badly phrased. Perhaps he was agitated…]

Svea hovrätt
Avdelning 2, rotel 50
Stockholm, January 25 2001

Regarding Panoussis’s statement of January 24, the court of appeals asked Religious Technology Center (“RTC”) to make a statement.

1. Class IX Auditors do not pay for the NOTs education.

2. Class IX Auditors do not pay for the NOTs education in case they leave the church.

3. Employees in the special department Sea Org (which Class IX Auditors are) do not pay for their education within the church nor for their costs of living – these costs are being paid by the church. While it is true that a symbolic pro forma invoice is made out for these employees, to demonstrate their commitment towards the church, and that employment is a prerequisite for free education and free costs of living, it can be added that this was introduced to prevent abuse of the beneficial system. Payment is actually not demanded if the person is leaving the church completely. If on the other hand such a person has left his employment within the church for good but still wants to be a member of the church and continue to use the religious services, the cost or parts thereof (depending on circumstances – in some cases, nothing is being paid) for the education and the costs of living according to the pro forma invoices must be paid. But the person who leaves the church entirely is thus not being required to pay the pro forma invoice, no matter what services he has used as an employee.

It can be noted that it is extremely unusual that Sea Org employees leave their employment, or the church (less than one percent).

4. It should be stressed that pro forma invoices DO NOT include the material itself, but only the education and the cost of living.

5. Panoussis’s claim that members who participate in OT6 and OT7 usually may use parts of the NOTs material is wrong.

6.Irrespective of the aforesaid, RTC wants to emphasise that the question about payment in some of the above-mentioned cases for education within the church and costs of living, lacks relevance in the case. Payment is never for copies of the material. [*]

RTC wants to stress that it does not in and for itself accept that Panoussis is allowed to hand in new evidence in the case, especially not the day before the pleas. RTC’s answers on these questions shall in this respect be seen as a benevolent gesture for the purpose of facilitating the handling of the case.

RTC assumes that the questions that Panoussis has brought up in his brief are hereby settled; otherwise, RTC retains the right to demand dismissal of Panoussis’ new claims.

Per Magnusson

[*] Do note the red herrings that Magnusson is throwing around. Zenon never claimed that payment is for copies of the NOTs.

*

MEANWHILE, ZENON CONTACTS other people. By the time it is evening, we have four people able and willing to testify under oath that about eighty percent of the NOTs Pack is included in OT6 and OT7, and that every public Scientologist who does these two courses, pays for them. That means: they pay to study the NOTs; which is what Zenon has been saying all along.

And what is more: we are able to prove that McShane is an unreliable witness.

We are looking forward to seeing McShane in court again tomorrow.

[Unbiased columnism is a series of seven court reports on the proceedings of Scientology versus Zenon Panoussis. This series covers the Jan 2001 sessions. Next and last: Carrying water from the desert to the sea.]

Panoussis vs Scientology, dag 4

Kinderachtige spelletjes

Stockholm, 23 januari 2001

[Vorige aflevering: Scientology’s wraak.]

DE ZAAK GAAT TOT NU TOE voorbeeldig. Gisteren en vandaag wordt bewijs onderzocht en worden getuigen aan de tand gevoeld. Zenon slaagt erin om de notaris die zijn Monkey NOTs heeft onderzocht en heeft vergeleken met Scientology’s originelen, te ondermijnen. Op veel van zijn vragen heeft ze geen antwoord. Ze heeft bijvoorbeeld niet genoteerd hoeveel hij niet gekopieerd heeft, ze wordt zelfs boos als hij daarnaar vraagt. Maar het is belangrijke informatie: het maakt het verschil uit tussen citeren en overnemen, en dus: tussen legitiem gebruik en auteursrechtinbreuk. Alexanderssons telkens herhaalde “dat weet ik niet … dat staat niet in mijn aantekeningen” wijst de rechtbank er bovendien op dat ze zich, voor het bepalen of inbreuk heeft plaatsgevonden, beter niet kunnen verlaten op iemand anders. De rechtbank zou zo’n vergelijking zelf moeten uitvoeren. Maar dat wil Scientology weer niet: het zou betekenen dat de NOTs ongemaskeerd moeten worden ingeleverd.

Bovendien betrapt Zenon haar. Waar ze eerder onder ede heeft verklaard dat ze een steekproef uit de tweehonderd Monkey NOTs heeft gemaakt en die selectie met de originelen heeft vergeleken (en zowat honderd procent was auteursrechtinbreuk), nu zegt ze dat ze simpelweg bovenaan de stapel is begonnen en alles terzijde heeft gelegd wat geen inbreuk leek. En dat ze “makkelijk kon herkennen” wat wel een inbreuk was. Claimde ze eerder niet dat ze woord voor woord had vergeleken?

We luisteren naar tapes van haar vorige verhoor, uit 1998. Verdomd. Betrapt.

*

EEN ANDERE GETUIGE, Thomas Small, wordt ook betrapt. Hij heeft in 1998 uitgelegd hoe de contracten tussen CST (die van de erven Hubbard de copyrights overgedragen kreeg) en RTC in elkaar staken. Hij was ingehuurd als deskundige. Wat hij er niet bij vertelde, was dat-ie op het moment dat hij getuigde in dienst was van RTC. En volgens de Amerikaanse wet mag je, als advocaat, niet tegen je werkgever getuigen. Met andere woorden: de man was niet neutraal maar hopeloos gekleurd, en zijn verhaal is daarmee waardeloos geworden.

Ook de computerdeskundige die eerder getuigde dat een bepaalde posting van Zenon op alt.religion.scientology onmogelijk een vervalsing kon zijn – een posting van mei 1998, waarin Zenon aankondigt de NOTs te zullen posten – moet nu op zijn verhaal terugkomen. Nieuwsberichten vervalsen is eigenlijk niet zo moeilijk. Hij moet dat wel toegeven, want afgelopen maand dook er op a.r.s een posting op met exact dezelfde gegevens in de headers, een posting die zogenaamd vanaf Zenons toenmalige en inmiddels opgeheven account was verstuurd en die getekend was met de naam van deze getuige… Evident een vervalsing. Maar hijzelf claimde eerder dat zulks vrijwel onmogelijk was.

*

MAGNUSSON WIL MCSHANE opnieuw laten getuigen. We weten waarom: Magnusson wil de schade die Zenon RTC inmiddels heeft toegebracht, beperken. Zenon heeft McShane immers laten zeggen hoeveel mensen OT2 en OT3 officieel hebben bestudeerd, en hoeveel ze daarvoor moeten hebben betalen. Onder de Zweedse wet – ook de Nederlandse, trouwens – moet elke tekst, of-ie nu officieel is uitgebracht of niet, per definitie als gepubliceerd beschouwd worden als er commercieel gebruik van wordt gemaakt. En de status ‘gepubliceerd’ krijgen toegeschreven is nu net wat RTC wil verhinderen: immers, zodra de rechtbank besluit dat OT2, OT3 en de NOTs als gepubliceerd beschouwd moeten worden, mag iedereen kopieën voor eigen gebruik maken en mag men publiekelijk uit die teksten citeren.

Magnusson neemt het woord. Hij wil weten hoeveel kopieën RTC zelf heeft gemaakt van OT2 en OT3; dat blijken er respectievelijk honderd en honderdvijftig te zijn. McShane wil maar zeggen: dat is toch verspreiding in kleine kring, nietwaar? (Wanneer een tekst slechts ‘in kleine kring verspreid is’, is dat weer een argument tegen die officiële status van ‘gepubliceerd zijn’.) En die vertalingen van de OTs en NOTs? Oh, maar die vallen onder die honderd kopieën, zegt McShane glunderend.

Hoe zit dat nu met die betaling, gaat Magnusson verder. Moeten Scientology auditors betalen voor hun studie van de NOTs? Pertinent niet, zegt McShane; deze auditors zijn in dienst van Scientology en ze bestuderen deze NOTs als onderdeel van hun opleiding. Ze betalen niet.

*

FUCK, DENKEN WIJ. Als dat echt zo is… En tegelijkertijd geloven we er geen zier van. Binnen Scientology moet je werkelijk voor alles betalen, zelfs voor je eigen Security Checks, en dit zou dan ineens gratis zijn? Als het Zenons beurt is om McShane aan de tand te voelen, doet Zenon zijn uiterste best om de waarheid boven tafel te halen.

“U stelt dat Class IX auditors niet betalen om de NOTs te bestuderen?”
“Dat is correct.”

“Doen ze dan wellicht een verplichte donatie?” (In Scientology heet iets nooit een betaling. Leden doen ‘verplichte donaties’.)
“Nee,” zegt McShane. “Onze auditors betalen niet voor de studie van de NOTs.”

Zenon en ik zakken ongelovig terug in onze stoelen. Dit kan niet waar zijn.

Zenon doet nog een poging. “Zijn deze auditors de enigen die de NOTs mogen bestuderen?” We hopen dat er meer mensen zijn, en dat zij wel betalen.
“Nee,” zegt McShane. “Zij zijn de enigen die deze NOTs onder ogen krijgen.”

Ik vloek inwendig. We worden bedrogen, maar verdomd als ik weet hoe.

*

VANDAAG IS DE EEN na laatste zittingsdag. Morgen en donderdag zijn we vrij, en pas vrijdag zijn de slotpleiten. Dat betekent onder andere dat we de serie van tien mappen die Magnusson afgelopen vrijdag zo gul uitdeelde, nu moeten meebrengen. Godlof is een supporter komen opdagen die ons wil helpen dragen. Op mijn schoot is geen plaats meer.

We pakken een van de kartonnen dozen waarin de mappen zijn aangekomen en stoppen de mappen erin. Pas als we thuisgekomen zijn, bekijken we de doos beter. Het is een doos van een Californische firma in advocaatbenodigdheden, McShane moet ze hebben meegenomen. Op de zijkant staat: Legal Source Inc. – The total litigation source company. “Total litigation”? Christus. Ze leveren vast ook de gevangenis erbij.

*

MET ONZE SUPPORTER gaan we naar een café om op adem te komen. Na een paar minuten komt er een vrouw binnen die hier qua kleding niet echt past. Ze gaat zo zitten dat ze ons goed kan zien en pakt een krant, die ze niet leest. Gisteren hadden Zenon en ik ook al de indruk dat we gevolgd werden, nu zijn we het zat. We bedenken een plan. Zenon vertrekt zogenaamd en omhelst onze supporter en mij uitgebreid; dan verlaat hij het café. Binnen een halve minuut vouwt de vrouw haar krant op en vertrekt ook. Wij bellen Zenon op zijn mobieltje om hem te waarschuwen.

Eenmaal buiten treft Zenon een man die zomaar wat rondhangt. Nadat Zenon hem is gepasseerd, kuiert de man in dezelfde richting. Na een tiental meter stopt Zenon ineens en draait zich om, alsof hij zoekt waar hij naartoe moet. De man wisselt een snelle blik met een tweede vrouw iets verderop. Na een paar seconden loopt Zenon weer terug naar waar hij vandaan kwam. Nu volgt de tweede vrouw hem. De vrouw van het café loopt nog voor hem. Ze maakt spoorslags rechtsomkeert als ze Zenon ziet en gaat voorbij het café naar een winkelraam staan kijken. Een andere man volgt Zenon. De tweede man gaat bij de winkelkijkende dame staan; ze wisselen een paar woorden. Zenon passeert ze, loopt verder, houdt stil en draait zich weer om. Het stel draait ook om en loopt weg. Nu loopt Zenon achter hen aan.

Hij haalt ze in en houdt ze staande. “Kunnen die kinderachtige spelletjes achterwege blijven? NU?” De vrouw schrikt. “Eh, ik begrijp niet waar je het over hebt,” zegt ze. Een idioot antwoord – want iedereen die echt niet weet waar-ie het over had, zou zeggen: “Spelletjes? Pardon? En wie ben je?” Ze heeft zich verraden.

Zenon draait zich om en loopt weer terug naar het café. Als we later per taxi vertrekken, worden we achtervolgd door een witte Volvo.

[Volgende aflevering: Onaanvaardbare waarheden.]

Unbiased columnism # 2.5

Child games

Stockholm, January 23, 2001

[Previous installment: Magnusson becomes helpful.] ZENON HAS NEW EVIDENCE and presents it to the court; it is a result of my transcript of McShane’s testimony as posted to the internet. Zenon got an e-mail from somebody [thank you! You know who you are] who claims that the NOTs are also studied privately and that more people have read the NOTs than McShane claimed in his deposition. The actual evidence is on its way and will be presented to court as soon as DHL allows it: an issue of Source Magazine and a copy of International Scientology News.

9:45 – First Tingsrätt tape.

WE HEAR THE 1998 tape of the deposition in primary court of Thomas Small. The dots represent the questions posed to him. And as we will hear, Small does indeed not explain that he is at the time of this deposition actively employed as RTC’s attorney. When answering what he does for a living, he replies by delineating his educational background and only speaks about his work for RTC as if it were a thing from the past. That makes him rather dishonest: he is far less impartial than he purported to be. He has not told the court that he is giving a testimony about his boss.

“I am a patent lawyer and intellectual property lawyer [explains about his education]. … I compiled the agreement [between CST and RTC] some time before it was signed. … Yes. … I was at the time representing primarily RTC and to some extent the Trustee as well, because they were co-operating as parties. I attempted to put their wishes on paper in the document. … Yes. … This document was designed to give all rights to the Advanced Technology Scientology material outside the US to RTC. … These were rights that were held by the Trustee as the successor of L. Ron Hubbard. … That includes the OTs and NOTs, those are part of the Advanced Technology. … The grant was intended to transfer all intellectual property. Basically, it consists of two parts. One part is the confidentiality of the documents and the other is the [couldn’t hear that, but I assume he refers to the license] … The protection of this confidential information is generally ruled by the contract. The license gives the right to use and make copies of the material. There are specific terms to it, which I will explain later. … There’s a specific provision in the agreement that RTC would be the enforcer and protector of these rights and, if necessary, enter into litigation to protect these rights. … This was in RTC’s name. They were granted the exclusive right to use the Advanced Technology and they were authorised to sue in their own name. CST can also sue if the need to do so arises. … [Lots of leafing through papers is audible.] … No, there were none other that I know of; at the bottom of the previous page it says that the Estate has the rights to pull [inaudible] and these serve as directions as to, as to the policy of the ecclesiastic use of the materials. … This is a religious document between parties who are the leaders of a religious group and there’s a number of scriptural limitations on how these materials can be used; confidential limitations, copyright limitations, and ecclesiastic limitations, explaining how RTC as the protector of these materials should protect them. … No. … Yes. … The rights remain the same. The role of the trustees simply passed to CST when CST became qualified to possess these rights.”

Zenon’s turn: “Are you saying that RTC and CST were co-operating partners in this?”

Small: “They were co-operating although CST had at that time not yet come directly into [xxx]. … The interests of CST and RTC were the same, yes. … CST did then not yet have a direct interest in the subject matter of the agreement; that was the Trustee at the time. … Whether RTC and the Estate had opposing any interest at that time? The answer is no, they had not. … It was an exclusive license, it was a transfer of copyrights, not to titles, but the right to [tape change] … The right to use and to authorise others to use were covered by the exclusive license, the copyright remains with the Trustee as the license holder. … First, because that was the desire of the partners, there was no intent to transfer copyrights to RTC or to anybody else. L. Ron Hubbard very carefully maintained personal rights to his own copyrights and Mr Hubbard made provisions that the rights went to CST and they were entitled to hold the rights into perpetuity. … The limitations as I intended to state are religious in nature: the Scientology scriptures state that this is the way they the Advanced Technology is to be used, after all it’s Mr Hubbard’s writings, and it is his wishes that guide the parties.”

Zenon asks why the contract – unlike most contracts – does not deal with possible conflicts between the contract partners or between them and third parties, and why RTC’s right to sue third parties in its own name is not regulated.

Small: “Well, that right accompanies exclusive licenses as a matter of law in the US, it wasn’t necessary to say any more in the license then it now states. … That’s right. … This contract was made in the US between parties in the US, and according to my understanding any conflict arising from the contract would be covered by and subject to US law.”

Zenon: “But the contract states explicitly that is only applies to the use of the copyrights outside the US; in countries with their own law, that might differ. Why was it not explicitly stipulated that the RTC has the right to sue in its own name?”

Small: “I suppose that it would be possible that there is a country where RTC would not have the right to bring suit as an exclusive licensee, and it is against that eventuality that, that in that case CST could do so if it became necessary. … I also add that this is not just a copyright agreement but also a confidentiality agreement and the licensee of confidential information might not automatically have the right to sue, and therefore its important for CST to have this right as a backup right as well.”

10:18 – End tape. Next one: Thomas Vorm’s testimony in Tingsrätt.

Vorm was giving his testimony via the telephone. The line was bad. Magnusson asked the questions.

M: How long have you held this position?
Vorm: “Since October 1988. My main task is to oversee the work done by RTC. I archive all [inaudible] to preserve the Scientology religion, including the Advanced Technology.”

M: [About the copyright of OT2, OT3 and NOTs and the respective roles of RTC and CST with regard to these copyrights]
Vorm: “Since 1988, RTC is the protector of the copyrights. Mr Hubbard’s estate was transferred to CST, and RTC brings litigation in case of infringement.”

M: Could you briefly describe CST’s position when it comes to the fact that the license has been given to RTC?
Vorm: “In 1993, after the copyrights were turned over, [inaudible]”

M: Which rights?
Vorm: “RTC had three basic rights. To authorise Scientology organisations to use the Advanced Technology and the right to distribute copies to these organisations; the exclusive right to protect and enforce these copyrights; and also to [inaudible].”

M: Does this also mean, according to CST, that RTC can also start litigation or take judicial procedures in its own name?
Vorm: “I’m not sure that I understand your question.”

M: According to CST, may RTC take legal action according to this license agreement when it comes to protect this copyrights?
Vorm: “Yes and yes.”

M: In RTC’s own name?
Vorm: “Yes.”

M: According to the opinion of CST, are there any remaining copyrights to this material that are not included in the license agreement and that are not given to RTC?
Vorm: “No, there are not.”

M: Could this mean that CST could take any measures if RTC does not fulfil its obligations?
Vorm: “Yes.”

Zenon’s turn.

Zenon: “Why did CST sue Spaink in Holland, if RTC takes care of this?”
Vorm: “– eh, I don’t understand the question.”

Magnusson interrupts. Thomas Vorm is not a lawyer and he objects to the question being asked.

Zenon: “If RTC is supposed to sue in its own name and that is sufficient, why did CST sue Karin Spaink and twenty-two Internet providers in Holland in 1995?”
Vorm: “I cannot say.”

Zenon: “No further questions.”

10:30 – End tape. Break.

10:51 – Third tape: the bailiff in Tingsrätt.

THE BAILIFF WAS responsible for the confiscation and searching of Zenon’s data, but did not carry out the search personally. She explains the method that was employed, as described in her protocol. The bailiff searched Zenon’s data on his hard disk, floppies and zip drives, but was only able to do so partially, because of encryption. The words that she was looking for as per RTC’s instructions, were the following: OT, NOT, NED, BT, Body Thetan, vulcano, volcano, GPM, Ward, Vorlon. Zenon handed her a floppy with the texts that were affected by the court’s decision, which helped her to retrieve some material from his hard disk and copy it to diskette. A month later Zenon asked for a copy of the floppy he had handed in, and then the bailiff confiscated it. That was the same floppy that had been in the bailiff’s possession all along, but it had not been formally confiscated before.

11:00 – Fourth and last tape: Birgitta Alexandersson, notary public. Since the original testimony was taped behind closed doors, part of the audience is now asked to leave.

Tape: Zenon asks how she selected the ‘works’ within attachment 126 that she then proceeded to compare to RTC’s originals of OT2, OT3 and the NED for OTs Pack (as she insists on calling the NOTs). She claims that she has made a random selection.

The court listens to that statement. Then the tape is rewound and fast-forwarded to another section of Alexandersson’s testimony, in which she again explains the procedure that she employed. And indeed again Alexandersson claims that she made a random selection.

This is totally at odds with her testimony of yesterday: there, she claimed that she started at the top of the stack of papers, and “since she knew the material so well by then”, she could “easily recognise what was infringing”.

11:15 – End of tapes.

Discussion about damages and legal costs. Magnusson again enumerates the instances in which Zenon infringed upon RTC’s rights and states the grounds for and the amount of damages that RTC claims:

– Payment for usage: 10,000 SEK
  the standard tariff being, according to the ttariff of the Swedish Writer’s Guild, is 160,000 SEK. In other words: RTC is being mild here, or so they claim.  
–  Tort for material damage: 10,000 SEK
  which includes their economical damage, money spent on guarding the material, loss of customers, market shares and license proceeds.  
–  Immaterial damages: 5,000 SEK
  loss of good name, hurt feelings etc.  

Apart from that, RTC demands the destruction of any secret and confidential material that Zenon has in his possession, has published or has distributed.

11:30 – Lunch break

13:15 – Court resumes.

ZENON STATES HIS OBJECTIONS to the need to pay damages. One of his grounds is freedom of speech and freedom of religion, based on the European convention on human rights. Scientology is a cult that has been criminally convicted in many Western countries, he explains; only next month a penal case in Madrid will start in which Heber Jentzsch, the president of Scientology, is one of the defendants.

In order to explain and assess what Scientology stands for, it is necessary to have access to their material. Besides, this is a consumer’s right worthy to defend: you need to be able to understand what you get into and what you pay for before you join any group.

The Chair warns Zenon that he is diverting from the subject of damages.

Zenon explains that there is a strong need for an open debate about Scientology and its beliefs, and that this is sufficient reason to publish their texts. Thus, damages should be waived under the provisions of the convention.

Part of Scientology’s claims should be rejected because Zenon is not responsible for them. They hold him accountable for infringements that he has not at all perpetrated, as for instance copies of OTs and NOTs made by the courts, not by him. Part of the damage caused, as for instance loss of revenue, is due to the bad quality of Hubbard’s writing and not to Zenon’s actions as such. Furthermore, an author’s right to compensation for immaterial damage, i.e. his hurt feelings, is personal to him and does not follow the copyrights. As for the legal fees that RTC demands (8 million SEK) and what the primary court ruled that Zenon had to pay (1,2 million SEK), there are important issues to be taken into account, that is, to be subtracted from the bill. He will go into those later.

Regarding the injunction and the destruction order that RTC wishes to impose upon him: not only does he dispute them, he also thinks they should be specified to particular objects and to particular texts, and be limited to apply only within Sweden. As things are now, the injunction is far too wide and neither limited in scope nor in time.

Destruction orders must always be fully specified. Besides, Swedish rulings can be enforced in the Netherlands. As things stand now, making a copy of the scriptures for personal use is infringement in Sweden but not in the Netherlands, where the courts have explicitly ruled that the scriptures are published material. If the Swedish ruling is not limited to apply within Sweden only, the Swedish court would be imposing its ruling on another country against the rulings of the courts of that country. In a country where a ruling is only enforced, it cannot be appealed.

13:50

A MORE DETAILED discussion of the legal fees as presented to the primary court is conducted.

Magnusson right now drops two items from the bill: Bill Hart’s legal fees and his travelling costs for the primary case: 1,351,350 SEK, and 211,642 SEK respectively. RTC’s bill for legal fees has just been reduced from 8 million SEK to 6,5 million SEK.

Zenon disputes various items on Magusson’s bill:

  • The legal fees: the political lobbying and the guarding of the OTs and NOTs in parliament are on the legal bill. This is not correct; only what is spent within a case itself can be charged in the case.
  • RTC is charging fees for costs brought about by other cases, lawsuits that branched off this one. You can’t put those on this bill: for instance, when RTC sued the court demanding secrecy, they can’t expect Zenon to foot the bill for that. It is simply not part of this case.
  • The legal bill is terribly vague where it comes to specifications. None of the costs on the bill can be checked.
  • The charges are unreasonable, and Magnusson’s fee is outrageous. If you compare what he demands or states that he costs with what Ms. Calissendorff, who for some time acted as Zenon’s lawyer, was awarded by the court, you can’t but cringe.
  • The legal bill is unduly burdened by unnecessary actions (from McShane’s affidavit and the translation thereof, to translations of a multitude of US rulings and a flood of legal opinions offered; from travelling and any number of hours worked for lawyers that didn’t actually participate in the case; Small’s travelling expenses while he could easily have testified by telephone, just like Vorm did; the amount of copies made and the price per copy calculated; the handing in of evidence to prove things that Zenon never questioned or denied; the consistent use of couriers instead of faxes; the aide who has been sitting next to Magnusson for a week while doing nothing much more than leafing through papers and occasionally passing a note on to Magnusson. And let’s not forget the ten binder set that Magnusson presented everybody with at the beginning of this case: there was nothing new in it, Magnusson just ‘re-ordered’ his evidence, and surely Z will be expected to pay for that as well.

In short, RTC and Magnusson have deliberately increased their costs and are now pushing that bill unto Zenon. Equality of arms (viz. the European Convention of Human Rights) is surely applicable in this aspect. In the absence of a reasonable bill, RTC’s legal costs must be reasonably assessed and be brought down proportionally according to what RTC has lost.

14:00

MAGNUSSON’S REPLY. It is obvious that Panoussis has done everything he could to increase RTC’s costs. On alt.religion.scientology, Zenon has in various postings claimed that RTC, by imposing such a enormous sum upon him, has in fact granted him immunity from future claims. And he is actually challenging RTC in that posting – as he has done in other postings – to sue him, while alternatively threatening to post more of RTC’s material.

Zenon’s claim that equality of arms should be taken into account is ridiculous. Actually, it amounts to discrimination: it means that the strongest party can’t spend more than the weaker party can afford.

Zenon replies that Magnusson’s last remark about strong and weak parties is of course nonsense. The strong party can spend whatever it wants; the only question at stake is whether it can demand that the weaker party will afterwards bear all these costs. He will save his other arguments for his plea.

14:30 – Break.
14:50 – Court resumes.

MAGNUSSON IS GOING TO deposit McShane again. Zenon informs the court that he would like to pose additional questions as well, and explains on what subject: contrary to what he stated, there appears to be a part of NOTs that people do study. Apart from that, it would appear from Scientology’s own publications that there are much more than just 325 Scientology members who have studied the NOTs, as McShane claimed: some 120 more at least. Does this evidence come from Scientology itself, the Chair asks? Yes, Zenon explains, it comes from Scientology’s own publications: Source Magazine and International Scientology News, and copies of those magazines arrive tomorrow. Zenon will provide Magnusson with copies immediately.

Magnusson claims that this is not at all relevant, and besides, why are we getting this at the latest moment imaginable? Short discussion between Chair and Zenon. Zenon explains that NOTs are courses with ‘fixed donations’ as well. The Chair wants to know since when. It has always been like this, says Zenon.

15:05 – Deposition of McShane

WE KNOW THAT THIS new deposition has been put in to repair some of the damage done previously, where McShane was forced to admit how many people have read OT2 and OT3, and his admittance that people pay for those courses. (Any commercial exploitation of a text is in itself sufficient to constitute publication, and thus, under European law, gives every citizen the right to possess copies for private use and allows everybody to quote from it.)

Magnusson: How many copies has RTC itself produced of OT2, OT3 and NOTs?
McShane: Of OT2, RTC has produced about twenty packs for each of the Advanced Churches. That is approximately a hundred copies in total. For OT3 the numbers are a little bit higher, about thirty copies for each Advanced Church. In case of the NOTs it is different, each of the Advanced Churches only has four copies, except for the Advanced Church in Florida that actually is the church that trains the NOTs ministers. They have about seventy copies.

Magnusson: That means that all in all there are about a hundred copies of OT2, hundred and fifty of OT3, and seventy or eighty of the NOTs?
McShane: Of the NOTs, that would be about eighty-six copies. Each of them is part of the inventory, is numbered and is plugged into the computer.

Magnusson: ..
McShane: Yes, about [xx] years ago we translated the OTs and NOTs into the four main languages: German, Spanish, French, Italian.

Magnusson: Are these translations part of the total amount of copies?
McShane: Yes, those numbers include the translations.

Magnusson: [assessing the degree of infringement as perpetrated by Zenon Panoussis]
McShane: I went through how much he infringed and [gets folder, opens it]

Magnusson: [can you give us the details?]
McShane: I compared the original work to the infringing copy. I did a word count and determined how many words he took from the originals. For instance, from OT2 he infringed upon 10 individual works and 4 of those works are infringed upon 100%, one is infringed upon for 94%, one for 84%, one for 75%, one for 62%, one for 20%, and the last one for 7%.
I did the same calculations for OT3. 15 works were infringed upon. 13 of those for 100%, one for 66%, and the last one for 29%.
I also did the same calculations for the NOTs. Of a total of 60 works 53 or 54 of the NOTs series and 4 other works were infringed upon. Just about all of them were infringed 100% There were two, I would say for 99,99% infringed upon, one for 91%, and there was a couple that was infringed upon for 95 % and another 80%. But the majority was taken verbatim.

Magnusson: .. summarise .. sentences .. text ..
McShane: I don’t follow the question.

Magnusson: [Are there other texts among the infringements?]
McShane: No, there are not.

Magnusson: The notary public, Alexandersson said that the distribution list of NOTs 54 mentions “solo NOTs”. Can you explain?

McShane: I testified that there was no Solo OT5. There is a course called Solo NOTs, but the member or parishioner who does that course does not study the NOTs himself, and although it says “NOTs Pack” on the cover, there is no NOTs issue or NOTs course on OT6.

 
[Comment: this ping-pong between Magnusson and McShane is the result of Zenon asking about Solo NOTs. Zenon had implied that the Solo NOTs – a course that has been done by plenty of Scientology members – are part of the NOTs pack. Here, McShane tries to refute that.]

Magnusson: [can you explain a bit more about the OT-levels]
McShane: Each of the OT-levels were based on research that Mr. Hubbard did into the spiritual nature of man, in order to discover the means, the ways of improving man’s spiritual nature, all leading to the ultimate goal of immortality. Each of the OT-levels are an expression of Mr. Hubbard’s writings, of what he discovered. And I know that it is hard to understand what those writings mean without prior knowledge, but after my twenty-seven years of being in the church, I’m very familiar with Mr. Hubbard’s writings and also from testifying in court cases, that each of those individual works is an expression of what he discovered on those particular subjects. I know that it is difficult for the courts to review this material, because we are dealing with religious scriptures, but the courses and the material contained within those courses impart to the individual that reads them the revelations that Mr. Hubbard discovered; and when you apply that material to yourself, you discover those revelations.

Magnusson: [Panoussis being wrong about whether any payment is expected for studying the NOTs]
McShane: Yes, Zenon Panoussis has it totally wrong. OT5 and the NOTs are only available to Scientology ministers and they do not pay for this course. These are employees of the church and it is their training. They do not pay for it.

Magnusson: [about the additional ministers who studied the NOTs Pack, over and above the 325 ministers that McShane testified have read them]
McShane: My testimony was about the state of affairs at the beginning of the trial at hand. I did not calculate any new ministers, but obviously there have been additional people trained under the same circumstances.

Magnusson: [how many additional people have studied the NOTs?]
McShane: Maybe between 50 and 100 additional members. Again, these are church members, they are staff, and they do not pay for this course.

15:27 – Zenon’s turn.

Zenon: The percentages that you mention you have calculated pertain to Exhibit 37? [That exhibit is what Zenon filed and what became public: it contains the OTs from the Fishman Affidavit and the NOTs.]
McShane: Yes.

Zenon: Are these percentages based on calculations per word, or on the amount of words?
McShane: I took your infringing copy and highlighted all the words and then counted all the words that were the same.

Zenon: Did you count any instances of words in the wrong order as an infringement?
McShane: I found no instances of that.

Zenon: Do your calculations pertain to individual works or the whole collection?
McShane: To individual works.

Zenon: With respect to the NOTs, you stated that sixty works were infringed upon. Are these sixty works all parts of the NOTs pack?
[Some discussion ensues as to what is the NOTs pack.]

Zenon: The sixty works that were infringed upon, are they all part of the binder that you showed here last Friday?
McShane: Yes.

Zenon: What OT-level have you yourself attained?
McShane: OT6.

Zenon: That means that you only have personal knowledge about everything up to and including OT6, but not of anything higher?
McShane: Yes.

Zenon: With respect to the ministers who study the NOTs: you say that they don’t pay for this course. But do they have to donate?
McShane: No.

Zenon: What is the official title of these ministers, their ‘hat’?
McShane: Auditors.

Zenon: Ehm, I mean what class of auditors?
McShane: Class IX.

[Z gets up and borrows a Scientology glossy from the court that has been filed as evidence; it contains a price list]

Zenon: Can you explain what it says here? “Class IX auditing rates – 9250 USD for 12,5 hours”.
McShane: That is what auditing with them costs.

Zenon: Is this what the auditors pay, or the auditees?
McShane: The auditees. The price refers to auditing rates for 12,5 hours. So if your a parishioner and you want to do NOTs, that would be the donation rate for 12,5 hours of auditing in Flag Clearwater, which is our Advanced Church in Florida.

Zenon: Let me rephrase. The people who actually get to see and study the NOTs: are they expected to pay any fixed donations?
McShane: No.

Zenon: In the magazines that are now on their way, Source Magazine issue 132 from 2000, and International Scientology News issue 9, 1999, it is claimed that 57 and 60 new Class IX Auditors respectively are about to get their grades. Is it probable that this many people have participated in NOTs since the previous trial?
McShane: That is possible.

15:40 – McShane’s deposition is done.

Some discussion about the magazines that are on their way ensues. On behalf of RTC, Magnusson admits that about 100 people have read the NOTs after 1998. As a result, the magazines do not need to be filed as evidence.

Both parties’ written evidence is then mentioned and noted – a procedural necessity, brought about by the Swedish legal system that demands that all arguments, grounds and evidence have to be presented verbally.

We are ready at 16:30, and pack our stuff. This time we need to take the extra binders with us with us that Magnusson brought in at the first day. Zenon had just left them in the court room so far; there was no point in dragging them along. Besides, we couldn’t carry them with us even if we wanted; but fortunately, this time one of our supporters has shown up and he will carry them for us. We take one of the cartons that Magnusson brought them in and pack.

Only later we look at the box more closely. On the side, it says:


Legal Source, Inc
The Total Litigation Support Company

… based in California. “Total litigation support”? Duh. Do they deliver jails, too?

*

Outside the court we have a much-needed smoke. The UK guy who approached us yesterday is there waiting for us: yes, he went to visit the local Scientology Org to get a second opinion and to fish for information about his grandson. To his great surprise, just before he entered, he saw the guy we had observed at the pub yesterday exit the Org…

We have a drink with our supporter. He gets to carry the extra carton. In the pub, we notice a woman who is slightly out of place. She has seated herself in such a way that she has an excellent view of us and she ‘appears’ to be reading a newspaper. Since we are tired of being followed, we devise a trick to figure out what is going on. Zenon will leave, and we will observe her.

Within thirty seconds of Zenon having exited the pub, the woman folds her paper and leaves. Our supporter phones Zenon on his mobile: “She’s getting out of the door now.” Our supporter and I continue talking, meanwhile scrutinising the street. After six or eight minutes, we see the same woman in the presence of a man passing the cafe, Zenon just behind them. He points at them and mimics at us. Our supporter gets up and joins Zenon.

After a few minutes, Z and our supporter get back into the café. “The street is swarming with Scientologists,” Zenon exclaims. “I noticed at least five,” and he explains what happened. When he went out, he saw a guy who was loitering and then slowly moved in the direction that Zenon was taking, so then Zenon turned around a corner and stopped; he saw the guy looking at him, pretending that he didn’t, and then he exchanged glances with another woman and wandered off, obviously having lost his purpose. This second woman appeared lost when Zenon simply turned and walked back to where he came from. Two guys were sitting in a parked car. On his way back to the café, Zenon saw the woman from the café coming towards him. The moment she noticed him, she turned around and walked back again, walked past the café and stopped at the next shop window. Behind her was a man, obviously unrelated to her, but he stopped at the shop window too and started talking with the woman. Sure enough, Zenon was yet further behind, so the man hadn’t seen him.

Zenon continued past the café and reaches the two, overhearing part of the woman’s exited explanations to the man. Zenon stopped next to them at the same shop window, whereby the man and the woman immediately departed in the direction they had just came from.

At this point Zenon followed them past the café and stopped them. “Can we stop these stupid little games NOW?” Zenon demande. “I don’t know what you are talking about,” the woman mumbled. (The natural answer would of course have been: “Games? What the fuck are you talking about? Who are you?”) Zenon scolded them severely and returned to the café.

When later all three of us get into a taxi, we are followed by a white Volvo. When we stop to let off our supporter, the white Volvo stops behind a parked bus. Our supporter takes them for a ride from there, while we, just in case, make sure that they have to spend a few hours in the Swedish cold if they manage to follow us.

[Unbiased columnism is a series of seven court reports on the proceedings of Scientology versus Zenon Panoussis. This series covers the Jan 2001 sessions. Next: Unacceptable truths.]

Panoussis vs Scientology, dag 3

Scientology’s wraak

Stockholm, 22 januari 2001

[Vorige aflevering: McShane snelt Zenon te hulp.]

HET ZAT MAGNUSSON, Scientology’s advocaat, bepaald niet lekker dat ik afgelopen vrijdag aanwezig was bij de sessies achter gesloten deuren, dat was hem aan te zien. Erger is dat ik van de getuigenis van McShane – de president van RTC, Scientology’s copyright divisie en in de praktijk het hoofd van de sekte – een vrijwel letterlijk transcript heb gemaakt dat ik vervolgens op alt.religion.scientology heb gepost. Zulke transcripten helpen andere critici aan nieuwe feiten, aan informatie die ze in hun rechtszaak kunnen gebruiken – net zoals ik in mijn bodemprocedure gebruik heb kunnen maken van McShanes getuigenis in FactNets zaak en in de vorige zaak van Zenon. McShane wil liever niet liegen, maar hij wil ook niet dat zijn woorden tegen hem gebruikt kunnen worden.

Mijn aanwezigheid bij die besloten sessie was de laatste druppel. Niet dat ik informatie daaruit heb gepost; ik kijk wel uit, ik wil Zenons zaak niet in gevaar brengen. Maar in die sessie liet McShane de echte, ongemaskeerde OTs en NOTs aan de rechtbank zien. Ik was daarbij. Ik heb ze bekeken. Ik ben daarmee de tweede buitenstaander die Scientology’s ‘geheime’ cursusmateriaal officieel heb mogen aanschouwen. Scientology haat dat.

*

ALS WE MAANDAGOCHTEND bij de rechtbank arriveren, grijnst Magnussons hulpje (Anders Bjørkman) me ineens breed toe. Tot nu toe heeft hij dwars door me heengekeken of geprobeerd me dood te staren. Ik verdenk Bjørkman ervan dat hij lid van de sekte is: zijn gestaar is daar een aanwijzing voor, evenals de openlijke minachting waarmee hij naar Zenon en mij kijkt: “Jullie… jullie uiitschot!!” Afstand bewaren tot de opponent van je cliënt is normaal, maar de haat die uit zijn blik spreekt suggereert meer. Wat voor mij de doorslag gaf, was dit: toen McShane tijdens de besloten sessie de OTs en NOTs aan de rechtbank toonde en iedereen bij hun tafel samendromde, bleef Bjørkman als enige zitten. Een advocaat heeft geen schroom de OTs en NOTs te zien; een Scientology-lid wel. Ik schreef dat met zoveel woorden op a.r.s.

Ik werd de volgende dag getrakteerd op deze grijns om het tegendeel te bewijzen. Nee, grimlachte Bjørkman eigenlijk, ik ben helemaal geen lid. Ha ha.

*

DACHT IK. WANT eenmaal in de rechtszaal beland blijkt er meer aan de hand te zijn. Zodra iedereen zit komt Magnusson met een punt van orde. Er is iets ernstigs gebeurd, de regels van dit hof zijn geschonden, het is werkelijk ongehoord: er zit iemand in ons midden die de rechtbank ontoelaatbaar heeft geschoffeerd. Wat wil het geval? Mevrouw Spaink, die optreedt als Panoussis’ hulp – zegt Magnusson, rood aanlopend en naar mij wijzend – heeft vertrouwelijke informatie prijsgegeven. Haar aanwezigheid hier kan niet langer worden getolereerd.

Magnussons hulpje Bjørkman staat op en deelt de rechters kopieën uit van mijn twee vorige (Engelstalige) verslagen voor alt.religion.scientology.

Tegen welke passages maakt Magnusson precies bezwaar, wil Zenon weten? Magnusson haalt een passage aan waarin ik vertel hoe Magnusson Zenon ervan weerhield om het ‘geloof’ van Scientology samen te vatten. Het afgewezen citaat staat in mijn tekst, gevolgd door mijn waarschuwing aan Magnusson dat Zenon zich nu genoopt voelt die passage in zijn slotpleidooi te gebruiken en dat hij, Magnusson, dan niet mag antwoorden. Dit gaat helemaal niet over besloten sessies. Dit gaat over Magnusson die zich te kijk gezet voelt, in de kuif gepikt acht.

Het hof aarzelt even. Hm, ik spreek over ‘body thetans’ in diezelfde passage. Was dat niet een term die Scientology vertrouwelijk acht? Ho ho, grijpt Zenon in, dat Scientology bepaalde woorden vertrouwelijk acht wil niet zeggen dat ze daarbuiten niet gebruikt mogen worden. Vrijwel alle critici van Scientology nemen die term regelmatig in de mond.

Magnusson eist dat mij de verdere toegang tot de rechtszaal wordt ontzegd. Niet alleen tijdens de besloten sessies, maar helemaal. Het hof wil een pauze, een beslissing hierover moet zonder publiek erbij worden besproken.

Iedereen moet naar buiten. We wachten. Het duurt lang, bijna een half uur, voordat de rechters ons weer naar binnen roepen. Gezien de zorgvuldigheid waarmee dit hof te werk gaat, gezien de tijd die ze nemen, is het evident dat ze mijn beide verslagen uitgebreid hebben gelezen voordat ze een beslissing namen.

We mogen naar binnen. De voorzitter van de rechtbank knikt beide partijen vriendelijk toe en deelt de beslissing van het hof mee. Mevrouw Spaink heeft de rand van haar rechten opgezocht maar is daar keurig binnen gebleven. Ze is noch incapabel noch ongeschikt om de rechterhand van meneer Panoussis te zijn.

Magnusson zucht. Weer een slag verloren. Ik grijns naar zijn hulpje Bjørkman.

[Volgende aflevering: Kinderachtige spelletjes.]

Knarkhund

NADAT IK MIJN TAS van de bagageband heb gehaald, moet ik een nauwe deur door. Aan de andere kant wachten twee mannen in uniform met een te grote hond. In mijn rolstoel schuw ik honden, zeker grote, want als ze bijten hebben ze meteen mijn gezicht te pakken. Ik wil terugdeinzen maar realiseer me net op tijd dat ik dat vooral niet moet doen: dit is een drugshond, zodra ik me schrikachtig gedraag word ik uit de rij gevist voor controle. Mijn schouders verstijven. Ik doe krampachtig gewoon.

Voor ik de douane voorbij ben heb ik drie zulke honden moeten passeren. Ik kwam immers net uit Nederland en dit is Zweden, waar drugsbezit en -gebruik streng wordt gecontroleerd en bestraft, en waar de jacht op gebruikers ferventer is dan die op dealers. Die in Nederlandse ogen bizarre prioriteitstelling is te danken aan de politiearts Bejerot die bedacht dat de dealers er altijd zouden zijn zolang er een markt is. Gebruikers achtte hij de zwakste schakel in de keten en bovendien, als was drugsgebruik een epidemie, ‘staken ze elkaar aan’. Sinds begin jaren negentig staat zelfs op het roken van een joint een gevangenisstraf van zes maanden; een strafmaat die zo gekozen is omdat de politie dan het recht heeft om iedereen die zij ervan verdenkt onder invloed te zijn, op te pakken en te dwingen urine- en bloedproeven te ondergaan.

In 1977 besloot de Zweedse overheid dat het land volledig drugsvrij moest worden. Dat is nog steeds het streven. Jaar in, jaar uit is het beleid strenger geworden. Er wordt geen onderscheid tussen soft- en harddrugs gemaakt: het vermoeden dat ergens marihuana wordt gebruikt is een geldige reden om een inval te doen. Maar het drugsgebruik stijgt: zowel het aantal verslaafden als het aantal recreatieve gebruikers neemt toe. En Zweden kent – vermoedelijk juist door dat repressieve beleid – meer lijmsnuivers dan cannabisrokers.

Het rare is dat Zweden procentueel ongeveer evenveel gebruikers heeft als Nederland. Waar Nederland zich inspant om de kwalijke gevolgen van drugs zoveel mogelijk in te perken – met gedoogbeleid en decriminalisering, wat door Zweden te vuur en te zwaard wordt bestreden, vooral in Europees verband – en tal van drugs in ons land betrekkelijk eenvoudig te verkrijgen zijn, hebben wij vergelijkbare hoeveelheden verslaafden en recreatieve gebruikers als de Zweden met hun repressieve beleid.

Je kunt uit die constatering verschillende conclusies trekken, waarvan de meest voor de hand liggende is dat het in principe niet uitmaakt welk beleid men voert: er zal kennelijk altijd een stabiele groep van gebruikers zijn, en mensen zijn klaarblijkelijk inventief genoeg om zich aan restricties te onttrekken. Maar die conclusie is vals. Want in de praktijk maakt het enorm veel uit wat voor beleid wordt gevoerd, repressief of tolerant. De hoeveelheid mensen met een strafblad is groot in Zweden, en veel gebruikers zitten in de gevangenis (waar ze zonder enige hulp moeten afkicken). Gevangenisstraffen zijn vier- tot vijfmaal zo hoog als in Nederland. Hulpverlening voor verslaafden bestaat vrijwel niet meer.

Even desastreus is de mate van repressie die de politie kan uitoefenen: zodra het vermoeden bestaat dat ergens drugs in het spel zijn (of die smoes gebruikt kan worden) heeft de politie vrijwel carte blanche. En in Zweden is nauwelijks discussie mogelijk over het drugsbeleid en de consequenties daarvan. Wetenschappers die wijzen op de nutteloosheid van het stringente antidrugsbeleid, worden gehoond en komen voortaan zelden meer aan het woord. Elke relativerende stem wordt gemarginaliseerd.

*

DEZE WEEK PRESENTEERT de drugscommissie van de Zweedse overheid haar eindrapport. Zij concludeert dat de afstand tussen streven en praktijk schier onoverbrugbaar is geworden en dat het beleid op zowat alle punten heeft gefaald. In de jaren negentig is het aantal jongeren dat drugs heeft gebruikt verdubbeld, en jongeren vinden dat drugs tegenwoordig makkelijker te krijgen zijn. (Wat de commissie er niet bij zegt is dat de meeste jongeren het over cannabis hebben.)

De voorstellen van de commissie? Meer controle op de recepten die mensen krijgen voorgeschreven, via het centraal register van de apotheken; een wet die het mogelijk maakt mensen die verdacht worden van het slikken van een capsule een braakmiddel toe te dienen; betere controle door de politie en de douane. Als je beleid faalt, stel je uiteraard meer van hetzelfde voor.

[Onderzoeker Tim Boekhout van Solinge heeft een uitstekend boek over het Zweedse drugsbeleid gepubliceerd. Een samenvatting ervan staat op www.cedro-uva.org/lib/boekhout.swedish.html.]

Unbiased columnism # 2.4

Magnusson becomes helpful

Stockholm, January 22, 2001

[Previous installment: McShane compliments Zenon.] WHEN ZENON AND I ENTER the hall after the weekend, Magnusson’s aide is the first person that we meet. While he usually ignores us, he now makes a show of flashing me a big grin. He must have read my previous report, I gather, and is doing his best to disprove my published assessment that he is a Scientologist. As I will soon discover, I am only partially right. There is a bit more to this smile.

9:30

THE COURT RESUMES. Magnusson starts by protesting my presence during last Friday’s closed door sessions. I wrote about these closed-door sessions, he informs the court, and published my notes on alt.religion.scientology. Thus, I broke the confidentiality that RTC tried to maintain with such difficulty, and apart from that, my reports constitute contempt of and defiance to the court that ordered me to maintain secrecy. Hence, Magnusson wants me out in all future closed sessions (such as today’s, when Birgitta Alexandersson, the notary public, will be heard).

Magnusson’s aide, who flashed me a huge smile only minutes ago, gets up and hands copies of my court reports as found on DejaNews to the court and to Zenon. Zenon replies that secrecy is only limited to actual parts of the scriptures discovered within these closed-door sessions, not to anything else, and I did not reveal any of that.

Magnusson sustains his protest. Zenon asks him to what passages exactly he and RTC object. One of them turns out to be the five-liner that Magnusson prevented Zenon from uttering Friday afternoon and which I later quoted as a planned part of Zenon’s plea, but most of all Magnusson protests the defiance that he discerns in the closing sentence of that paragraph: “That’s secrecy for you.” Aren’t I ridiculing the court here?

Zenon explains that this certainly was not information that I learned in a closed session: Magnusson did not allow Zenon to utter these lines and I got them at home, from Zenon himself, from his notes. And what does Magnusson mean by ‘contempt’? I simply pointed out the consequences of Magnusson’s own stance: if Magnusson will not allow Zenon to say something while they are discussing evidence and grounds, he will bring up that same issue in his plea – perhaps even with more vehemence.

It slowly dawns upon me that Magnusson has actually been demanding that I be thrown out of the court room completely, even when the doors are not closed and no secrecy is required. I must no longer be allowed to be here. I have shown gross contempt of court, and have proven myself to be utterly unsuitable and unworthy.

The court tackles the question in slices. They are not sure whether my use of the term “body thetan” in the previous report is justified. There is indeed some secrecy to be maintained, isn’t there? Zenon argues that far before he ever got into a dispute with Scientology in 1996, that word was already being used by other people in public discussions about Scientology. (Actually, he could have informed the court that there even is a Dutch Body Thetan Society, and that the UK can boast an Association to Prevent Cruelty Against Body Thetans.) The court can’t very well prohibit us from using words from the scriptures, can they? If it did, half the English vocabulary would be covered by secrecy. As for Magnusson’s wish that I be dismissed: Zenon needs me; while he is interrogating people he can’t make notes, and he has no other assistance than mine.

The court adjourns. They need to reach a formal decision on Magnusson’s request.

9:50

DURING THE BREAK, Zenon and I discuss the consequences of a negative decision. “I need to have somebody who can make notes and who can shove information at me,” Zenon says. “If the court refuses you any further entrance, I am afraid that I must ask the court to adjourn and reschedule the whole case. Fuck, I can’t do this totally by myself, can I?”

Then again, we understand why Magnusson is doing this. First of all, McShane suddenly finds a rather detailed transcript of his testimony on the net – and as we all know, transcripts such as these are often terribly useful in other people’s court cases. McShane would rather not have them around, especially not where it concerns a closed session. He’d rather not be held accountable elsewhere for what he is saying here. Secondly, there is probably an element of revenge involved. So there I was, not a party in this court case at all, yet allowed to see the OTs and NOTs; probably I am the second non-Scientologist, non-lawyer in the position to officially lay their eyes upon Scientology’s scriptures – Zenon being the first. And thirdly, Magnusson might hope to hamper or cripple Zenon. He is simply being pusillanimous.

We wait for twenty-five minutes for the court to announce its decision. Judging by the amount of time that it takes, and by the no-nonsense behaviour of this court, we assume that the court is carefully reading my two reports and weighing my words.

It’s a rather weird thought that by now three of my articles have made it into this court case: my summary of OT3 has been part of the case for a few years already (in attachment 126), and by now two new pieces have been officially filed.

10:15

THE COURT RESUMES. We are called in to hear their decision. Although I walked a tight line, the court states, they found me neither incapable nor unsuitable to be Zenon’s biträde. There was no contempt of court. I can stay.

I breathe relief. Zenon will not be forced to ask to reschedule. Moreover, while I was vehemently hoping that the court would come across my reports – they do after all not only comment upon McShane’s glitches (oh, how I now wish that I had incorporated all previous known and established security breaches concerning the OTs in my last report; it would have been so edifying), they also present a more social, subjective point of entry than any legal assessment can provide one with – Magnusson has dutifully fulfilled that task for me and has himself formally provided the court with my reports. Thank you, Mr Magnusson; you were most kind.

Then again, I’m quite sure that Magnusson will put the fee for the copies of my a.r.s. reports on Zenon’s legal bill.

10:18 – A procedural discussion starts.

Zenon would like to have the deposition of Ms Alexandersson, the notary public who compared Zenon’s postings and his webpage to RTC’s originals in an open session: he assumes that the procedure of her comparison will be discussed, not the actual contents of the material. The court needs to make another decision. It takes them ten minutes.

10:30 – The court announce their decision: Ms Alexandersson’s testimony will be partly open, and partly under secrecy, just like McShane’s testimony.

10:33 – Birgitta Alexandersson’s deposition

MS ALEXANDERSSON SEATS herself. She is reminded – like McShane was previously – that she is still under oath. She starts by explaining that she is not working as a notary public anymore, and is by now living abroad.

Magnusson: What method did you employ to make the comparison?

Birgitta Alexandersson: 3 steps. We – I and my aide, who is a lawyer – sat down with the material I got the originals from the church, both OT2 and OT3 and NOTs. We compared those to attachment 30, 37, and 126, the diskettes from the bailiff, the material from Panoussis’ hard disk and the documents handed in to the various authorities. With respect to attachment 126 [the monkey OTs], I made a ransom selection and compared those to the originals. They were exact copies.

M: How did you get the originals?

BA: A church official brought them to my office.

10:38 – Start of closed session

Zenon comments that Alexandersson’s aide stays in the court room. Alexandersson says that he helped her to make the comparison and that he knows her notes. Zenon asks why he should be allowed to stay during this closed session. Can’t Alexandersson read from her notes by herself? Does she need help or a souffleur?

The court has a small discussion amongst themselves. In the meanwhile Alexandersson gets quite annoyed and says that she doesn’t care if her aide leaves, so the aide does so before the court reaches a decision. Magnusson tries to retaliate by reminding the court that I am here and am making notes. The court assures Magnusson that I am still bound by secrecy.

Alexandersson produces her notes and from those, she reads what differences and similarities she assessed existed between Zenon’s OT2, OT3 and NOTs and the originals that RTC supplied her with. It takes an hour and a half to do so.

12:17-13:15 – Lunch break.

Zenon questions Alexandersson. He wishes to know how much of OT2 and OT3 was not quoted in the documents that he posted or filed. Alexandersson goes through her notes, but can’t find the answer in them; she exclaims that these notes are old and that she doesn’t remember. She only has her notes to go by. Zenon insists, the answer is quite important to him; Alexandersson gets quite irritated: she has no knowledge apart from what is comprised in her notes, and she doesn’t see why Zenon insists. I, however, understand why he does so: Zenon is trying to show that Alexandersson only compared texts that match and is not telling or does not know how much of the original text was not at all in Zenon’s copies. This is important with regard to the right to quote. Alexandersson finally states that she received the full binders from RTC, the same ones that the court has seen. Taking this into consideration, her account of how big parts were copied doesn’t seem to match the length of the respective materials. End of closed session.

Zenon wants to know how Alexandersson made her selection of the works within attachment 126 that she then compared to RTC’s original NOTs pack. Did she make a random selection? Yes. No. She started at the top of Attachment 126 and then compared each individual Monkey NOT to the NOTs Pack. Since by then she was well acquainted with the originals, she could decide rather quickly which works within Attachment 126 was infringing and which one wasn’t. No, she didn’t go through the whole of Attachment 126; it contained 200 individual texts, she was dead tired and she had agreed with Magnusson that she would hand in her assessment the next morning. Yes, she started at the top and ignored the ones that were fakes. Yes, that is how she assessed that the seven works that she compared were originals. No, the ones that she threw aside she didn’t count. No, she doesn’t remember, it’s too long ago. Yes, she worked her way from the top down.

In the hearings of 1998, Alexandersson twice stated under oath that she had made a random selection from within attachment 126 and that each of those randomly selected works that she compared to he originals, was infringing. According to the investigation protocol she said the same to the prosecutor in the penal investigation case against Zenon. Now she says that she did not select randomly, that everything that at first glance did not appear infringing was cast aside, and that she defined the result of her selection to be her random selection. The court frowns. Alexandersson denies that she ever stated that she made a random selection. The court secretary intervenes: Alexandersson has indeed stated that.

Zenon asks for Alexandersson’s testimony in primary court to be re-heard from the tapes.

13:55 – Mikael Nyström’s testimony.

NYSTRÖM IS THE internet and computer expert who in primary court stated under oath that a series of NOTs postings to a.r.s. – dated May 2, 1996, postings that Zenon disputes he ever made – could not, or could almost not have been falsified. Meanwhile, it has been proven that such a message can be falsified: a few weeks ago a message was posted to a.r.s. having the exact same headers (host name, NTTP-posting host, NTTP-posting user, user, sender, what have you; all from Zenon’s old dodo.pp.se account which has long been closed) and that message was purportedly written by Mikael Nyström. Zenon questions Nyström.

Zenon: can you explain to the court how one identifies a Usenet message?
Nyström: By the IP address (you check whether it exists), the message ID, the NNTP posting host, NNTP posting user, the news server used. You can falsify a few things but not all.

Z: Can you falsify the sender’s address?
N: Yes.

Z: The message ID?
N: That is more difficult, but not impossible. The message ID in part serves as a guarantee for authenticity: it is unique for each message.

Z: Where is such a message ID created?
N: That depends upon the operating system used, and upon the program used. Almost always the message-ID is created by the server.

Z: Do you know if Netscape generates a message ID?
N: I’m not sure with Netscape, but in any case the news server checks the message ID and might modify it.

Z: Which headers are generated from within Netscape, that is: at the client side?
N: The sender name and e-mail address.

Z: What about NNTP posting user and NTTP posting host?
N: These are always generated by the server. Even if the client would add them to a message, the server would strip them off and re-generate them.

Z: Can you falsify NNTP posting user and NTTP posting host?
N: There is some room for falsification, but not much.

Z: So how do you tell where a message come from?
N: By looking at the dial-up and at the posting host, the IP address for the computer, that is: the name for the computer to which you are connected and via which you post.

Z: What does ‘dial-up’ and ‘posting-user’ mean?
N: It tells you which particular user is logged in at this particular moment from which particular dial-up.

Z: If you dial in and post to a newsgroup, are your actions then logged, under normal circumstances?
N: Yes, certainly when you pay per minute of usage at your provider. Paid providers do extensive logging. With free providers, it’s a tad different.

Z: How normal is logging for normal providers?
N: It is even expected of them. When a client for instance abuses the net you must be able to trace him.

Z: So you can look at these logs and then find out who it was?
N: Yes.

Z: Let’s look more closely at this particular message. Can you tell from where it was posted?
N: Yes, by looking at the path, the posting host, the news server.

Z: The path lists all the computers through which this message passed?
N: Yes. Each message passes lots of machines; and here you can see which ones. At news servers, a replication process takes place: news servers check what they have and what they miss, and then exchange on a peer-to-peer basis with one another in order to get a full feed. That is where the message IDs comes in, these are used to check what you have and what you have not.

Z: So, is it correct to say that from this path you can tell…
N: Yes, you can see which way it traveled.

Z: And the dial-up?
N: You can tell that he’s from e.g. Tele2 and dialed in.

Z: Within which limits can you be certain about that?
N: To quite some degree.

Z: [shows Nyström the falsified message]
N: This one says that it came from Swipnet. We know that it is false, the account does no longer exist.

Z: But if you had no clue about its origin and were just presented with this message, would you still say…
N: I can’t be sure. We know that this one is falsified.

Z: How can you falsify a news message?
N: Usually, this is done by injecting it into a news server.

Chair: How do you do that?
N: You contact a news server directly, and you fake a sender and a message ID.

Z: How do you recognise a faked message?
N: You look at the sender, at the message ID and check whether that is plausible, then at the posting host and user, and you look at the path and check whether it is reasonable.

Z: As a system administrator, you can log in everywhere, can’t you, and can’t you inject any message then?
N: Well, if you are a system administrator, basically, you sit with your hands in the cookie jar.

Z: You spoke about news servers pooling their messages and exchanging them. How many news servers are there?
N: Tens of thousands.

Z: If you inject a message in any of them, will that message circulate normally?
N: More or less.

Z: So sysadmins have full possibility to falsify messages?
N: Yes.

Z: In tingsrätt you said that you were 99% sure that this message could not have been falsified. Now you say that it is possible.
N: Erm, it is not impossible.

Z: Can a system administrator inject a Usenet message via his own news server?
N: Yes.

Z: Can an individual do it?
N: Yes.

Z: And an organisation?
N: Yes.

Chair: So it is technically possible?
N: Yes. It can be done. However, the information about how it can be done is now more readily available than it was in 1996. If the court would search the net, I am sure that within five minutes, they would find a course on the net teaching them “How to make a fake posting”.

Z: How can you ensure that a posting is real?
N: By checking the logs that the provider keeps, by checking the telephone numbers that were used for dial-up, by checking who was logged in from where. You would need to have all log files.

Z: Having Tele2’s logs would give you a good chance of proving this?
N: Sure. I would first of all check the dial-up and then see from which telephone line the user phoned in.

Z: Can you fake that?
N: That is very, very difficult. You need to manipulate a really big system, but perhaps when you have lots of money…

15:00 done. Magnusson’s turn.

M: At your Tingsrätt deposition, you said that you had informed yourself about the possibilities to make false postings.
N: I spoke with experts and with Tele2.

M: Can you manipulate posting host and posting user?
N: Sitting at home it is more complicated, but it can be done.

M: And you say that this is easier for a sysadmin to do?
N: Yes, the discussions that I had show that it is possible.

M: Does a firewall make such things more easy?
N: A firewall is meant to bar unwanted requests. It blocks them. We have a few attacks each day on our own systems.

M: Can you fake a posting host or posting user via a firewall?
N: No, you must manipulate them at the server. The firewall is just a guarantee that things don’t get in.

M: Was it easy in 1996 to fake the posting host?
N: The information on how they to do that was less generally available.

M: [speaks about moving copies from the one place to the other; cached copies etc; previously, in primary court, Magnusson had tried to stamp each virtual copy that Zenon’s computer created as a separate instance of infringement]
N: That’s just a technical thing. When you have a file on a medium and you want to move it, you create a copy first and then delete the original. You must always first copy a file when you move it, even if both actions are accomplished with one single command.

M: Newsgroups, can you explain what they are and compare them to homepages?
N: A website is fixed in one place, you copy your files directly to that. Newsgroups get their information from many sources, and the messages jump from server to server to server.

M: If I want to copy text from my computer to a newsgroup?
N: [explains how to do that]

M: Thus, many virtual copies are made of my posting?
N: That is the nature of newsgroups. The Usenet system is not located in one place, it is copied around.

M: How many copies exactly are made of news postings?
N: That depends on how popular a newsgroup is and how often a particular message is requested. They just go to a news server and get replicated from there.

Zenon’s turn again. From now on, Magnusson and Zenon each pose a few question to the witness. It’s almost like a bidding contest.

Zenon: Do you know whether Tele2 demanded authentication on the news server in 1996?
N: I don’t think that they did.

Zenon: As for copies when files are moved: would you say that it is impossible to do without them, that the technical process demands them?
N: Yes.

Magnusson: In primary court, you said that you were 99% sure that it was not possible to falsify a newsgroup message. On what did you base this statement?
N: On talks, discussions, my general knowledge.

Zenon: Have you ever heard of the spamming of newsgroups?
N: Yes.

Z: In May 1996, there was a whole flood of false postings to a.r.s. Do you know that?
N: I know about spam attacks on newsgroups, but I do not know about this one.

15:45 – End of Nyström’s deposition.

The remaining 45 minutes of today’s session are taken up by procedural matters: evidence is listed and compared, and tomorrow’s schedule is decided.

*

ZENON AND I LEAVE court rather happy. Today’s session went well: we have caught Alexandersson with errors, and Nyström by now has admitted that it is not at all as difficult to fake a posting as he previously stated. Also, we note that Magnusson seems increasingly nervous. Today, we saw him smoking outside. He has never done so before.

When we have our cigarette just at the court’s door, a couple approaches us. The man, fifty-ish, asks who we are. He is looking for Zenon Panoussis. You see, he explains, his grandson has joined Scientology and now he is looking for information about them, and then his lover – he points at the young blonde who is accompanying him – found out about this court case on the net, and since he doesn’t know anybody who is familiar with Scientology, he thought that he had better come to court and ask us to impart our knowledge.

After a few minutes we decide to go to a café to talk.

Once there, we launch upon a one-hour explanation about Scientology, while warning the couple that our information is coloured and that they should check for themselves. They are increasingly unsettled at what we tell them. All your money? Space Opera? Reincarnation? Discipline? Intelligence division? Scientology has been convicted for theft, fraud, infiltration?

Five minutes after we entered, a guy comes in and takes the table next to us. He orders food and a glass of water and consistently stares at the television at the other end of the café. It is right behind us. He stares over our heads and our conversation seems to totally evade him.

I get uncomfortable. We are after all discussing rather weird and outrageous matters in a loud voice, and I know that if I had been sitting next to a table where such a conversation would be conducted, I would listen in a bit, and that my reaction would be visible on my face. Not this guy. He doesn’t bat an eye. Actually, he seems so impervious to our conversation that it becomes suspicious.

I have the feeling that the guy is a Scientology tail.

So does Zenon, as it turns out. The moment the guy gets up to have a leak, Zenon brings him up. And once he says so, the young woman says she has been wondering about his behaviour as well. We decide that once we all leave the café, Zenon and I will dash into a taxi and that the couple will keep an open eye. They might be tailed now as well.

THE NEXT DAY, after court is done and we leave the building, the man with the grandson in Scientology is waiting for us. He wants to tell us that not only did he go to the local Scientology org – to inform himself, as we advised him to do, and to get the other side of the story – but most of all that when he was about to enter the Org, he saw the guy who had been sitting next to us in the café exit the Scientology building.

We are being tailed.

[Unbiased columnism is a series of seven court reports on the proceedings of Scientology versus Zenon Panoussis. This series covers the Jan 2001 sessions. Next: Child games.]

Panoussis vs Scientology, dag 2

McShane snelt Zenon te hulp

Stockholm, 19 januari 2009

[Vorige aflevering: Verknipte stukken.]

VANDAAG WORDT McShane, president van RTC (Scientology’s copyright divisie) onder ede gehoord. We hebben dat eerder meegemaakt, namelijk in de vorige zaak. McShane is eerlijk. Hij liegt niet, en, wat belangrijker is, hij gelooft wat hij zegt. Het enige probleem met zijn getuigenis is dat het rechtsgevoel van de gemiddelde Scientoloog nogal afwijkt van wat normaal is, en daarmee ook zijn waarheid.

Een belangrijk deel van McShanes getuigenis draait om de vraag hoe goed Scientology de OTs en NOTs beschermd heeft. McShane legt uit dat het materiaal permanent bewaakt wordt, dat het achter dikke deuren ligt die automatisch worden geblokkeerd als ergens iets fout gaat, dat de mappen met het cursusmateriaal via pluggen met een computer verbonden zijn en dat zodra een map langer dan dertig seconden los is, de hel losbreekt.

Zenon en ik knikkebollen, we kennen dit verhaal. Bovendien is het niet relevant. Dat ze nu goede bescherming hebben, zegt niets over vroeger: de OTs en NOTs zijn regelmatig in handen van anderen gevallen, al was het maar omdat je vroeger je studiemateriaal mee naar je Scientologenhuis mocht nemen. Wat meer is: ook al bescherm je iets genadeloos, het enige dat wettelijk telt is hoeveel mensen die stukken hebben gelezen.

Scientology claimt immers dat dit materiaal ongepubliceerd is en slechts in kleine, besloten kring is verspreid. Zolang een tekst niet officieel is gepubliceerd, zijn er meer restricties dan na publicatie: je mag als derde bijvoorbeeld geen kopie voor eigen gebruik hebben, en je mag er niet uit citeren. Wat Zenon wil is bewijzen dat het OT-materiaal op zulke grote schaal is verspreid dat het als gepubliceerd moet worden beschouwd, wat derden meer rechten geeft ten opzichte van die teksten. De Nederlandse rechter heeft precies dat vastgesteld, maar de Zweedse rechter oordeelde eerder anders.

*

McShane legt uit dat mensen niet betalen wanneer ze deze teksten willen bestuderen. Ze hoeven alleen maar een “vaste donatie” te doen. In het geval van OT3 is dat 6000 dollar. Nu kunnen wij dat veel vinden, maar we moeten beseffen dat Scientology een relatief nieuwe religie is en dat het oprichten van een kerk een dure aangelegenheid is: er komt huur aan te pas, de staf moet betaald worden, boeken moeten worden gedrukt, promotiemateriaal aangemaakt, goede doelen ondersteund, lobbies opgezet.

Maar hoeveel mensen hebben OT3 nu precies gelezen, vraagt de rechtbank. “Zo’n vijfentwintig duizend,” zegt McShane trots. De rechtbank knikt bedachtzaam. Vijfentwintig duizend, dat is bepaald geen besloten kring te noemen, zie je ze denken. Later in zijn verhoor laat McShane zich per ongeluk ontvallen dat de OTs vertaald zijn. “Vertaald?” vraagt de voorzitter van de rechtbank. Ja, zegt McShane, dat is een enorme en minutieuze klus: want voor elk woord moet je heel precies de exacte betekenis vaststellen, als er ook maar iets misgaat en een nuance vergeten wordt, verliest het materiaal zijn spirituele kracht.

*

De Scientologen moeten de rechtszaal uit, alleen de eiser en gedaagde mogen blijven: dit deel van het verhoor vindt achter gesloten deuren plaats, omdat McShane de rechtbank de OTs en NOTs zal laten zien. Scientology wil geheimhouding. Ik mag blijven: tijdens dit deel van de rechtszaak fungeer ik als Zenons “biträde”, zijn juridisch assistent.

We lopen allemaal naar voren. McShane haalt Het Materiaal tevoorschijn. Werden de OT-levels in mijn eerste rechtszaak nog in vergulde koffers vervoerd en met omzichtige eerbied behandeld, nu pakt McShane simpelweg drie zwarte mappen uit zijn bagage. Ze zien er eigenlijk nogal onooglijk uit.

McShane legt de mappen voor de rechters neer en bladert er doorheen. We zien OT3: deels handgeschreven, deels typoscript. McShane pakt OT2. “Kijk, dit is een separaat werk,” wijst hij, en toont een pagina met tien, twaalf regels tekst. “Andere werken binnen OT2 zijn langer,” en hij toont een ‘werk’ van een pagina of vijf.

Zenon herkent iets. “Wacht, mag ik even?” zegt hij, en neemt OT2 van McShane over en bladert erin. McShane krimpt ineen: een ‘suppressive’ heeft zijn heiligste der heiligen in handen en hij kan er niets tegen doen. Zenon pakt zijn eigen Fishman Affidavit erbij en vergelijkt het twaalf-regelige ‘werk’ met de versie ervan in het Fishman Affidavit. “Kijk,” zegt hij, “ik heb er maar vier regels uit geciteerd. Maar RTC heeft dit aangemerkt als auteursrechtinbreuk.” We zien meer van zulke voorbeelden. Ergens in een OT2-werk staat een lijst met uitleg. In het Fishman Affidavit staat alleen de lijst, zonder enige toelichting – dat kan zelfs niet als citaat worden beschouwd, maar toch heeft RTC dit aangemerkt als een volwaardige inbreuk op hun auteursrecht.

McShane haast zich om dit principe uit te leggen. “U moet begrijpen,” zegt hij tegen de rechtbank, “dat deze woorden voor ons grote betekenis hebben en dat ze confidentieel zijn. Gebruik ervan kunnen wij niet toestaan en is daarom auteursrechtinbreuk.”

Begrijp ik hem goed? Zegt McShane nu echt dat ze copyright op losse woorden hebben? Ja, ik begrijp hem goed. En hij meent het, hij gelooft dat echt. Het probleem is alleen dat zijn overtuiging niet spoort met de normale rechtsopvatting. “Dus zulke woorden mogen niet gebruikt worden”, vraagt Zenon voor de zekerheid. “Nee,” zegt McShane. “En ook parafrasering is auteursrechtinbreuk.”

Ik juich inwendig. Ik weet dat McShane dit vindt, hij heeft in andere rechtszaken precies hetzelfde beweerd, maar dat hij deze enormiteit hier en nu uitspreekt is een godsgeschenk: hij geeft de rechtbank het ene na het andere argument om Scientology’s claims met heel veel reserve te bejegenen.

[Volgende aflevering: Scientology’s wraak.]